Reforming Testamentary Undue Influence in\nCanadian and English Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional doctrine of testamentary undue influence developed in nineteenth century England. Its utility, however, is limited since the doctrine requires the person alleging undue influence to provide direct proof of coercion according to a high standard. In England the doctrine has remained static and there have been calls for reform. In Canada, some courts have ceased to apply the traditional doctrine so that today there is no one consistent and coherent doctrine of testamentary undue influence. This article explores two possible reforms of the doctrine both of which are evident in recent Canadian case law: a presumption of testamentary undue influence and a modified doctrine of testamentary undue influence. It is argued that testators in both England and Canada would be best protected by a three-tiered approach comprising a modified doctrine of undue influence. It entails a presumption of validity where certain measures are taken in the execution of a will; the modification of key elements of the traditional doctrine relating to the testator's state of mind, reliance on circumstantial evidence and the standard ofproof- and the adoption of the modified doctrine in those cases where a party challenges the inter vivos and testamentary gifts of a deceased donor on the basis of undue influence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".