Impeaching Witness Credibility

Impeaching Witness Credibility

The Supreme Court of Canada summarized the law relating to the impeachment of witness credibility in the rule in Browne v. Dunn in R.v Lyttle 2004 SCC 5 at paragraph 64:

“The rule in Browne v Dunn requires counsel to give notice to those witnesses whom the cross examiner intends later to impeach. The rationale for the rule is that the cross examiner should give an opportunity of making any explanation, which is open to the witness, not only as a rule of professional practice in the conduct of the case, but that is essential to fair play and fair dealing with witnesses.”

The rule although designed to provide fairness to witnesses in the parties, is not fixed, and the extent of its application is within the discretion of the trial judge, after taking into account all of the circumstances of the case.

In R.v Quansah 2015 ONCA 237 at paragraph 77 the court summarized the fairness considerations animating the confrontation principle:

1. Fairness to the witness whose credibility is attacked: the witnesses alerted that the cross examiner intends to impeach his or her evidence, and given a chance to explain why the contradictory evidence, or any inferences to be drawn from it, should not be accepted;

2. Fairness to the party whose witness is impeached- the party calling the witness has notice of the precise aspect of that witnesses testimony that are being contested, so that the party can decide whether or what confirmatory evidence to call; and

3. Fairness to the trier of fact: without the rule, the trier of fact would be deprived of information that might show the credibility impeachment to be unfounded, and this compromise the accuracy of the verdict.

The purpose of the rule in Browne v Dunn is to protect trial fairness. (– R. Podolski 2018 BCCA 96 at paragraph 145)

While it is often referred to as a rule, it’s legal application will depend on the circumstances of the case. The rule is not ossified, and flexible rule of universal and unremitting application that condemns a cross examiner who defaults to an evidentiary abyss.

The jurisprudence reflects that were trial fairness is unaffected by lack of cross examination, a cross examiner’s failure to confront a witness will not violate the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

This may be a case where it is clear or apparent, on considering all of the circumstances, which may include the pleadings and questions put to the witness an examination for discovery, that the witness or opposite party had clear, ample and effective notice of the cross examiners position or theory of the case. Therefore, where the other party, the witness, and the court are not caught by surprise because they are aware of the central issues of the litigation, the rule in Browne v. Dunn is not engaged.

Where the rule is engaged, a trial judge enjoys broad discretion in determining the appropriate remedy, and there is no fixed consequence for an infringement of the rule.

Factors to consider:

In Quansah at paragraph 117, the court listed the following factors that may inform the appropriate remedy:

  • The seriousness of the breach;
  • the context of the breach;
  • the timing of the objection
  • the position of the offending party;
  • any request to permit recall of a witness
  • the availability of the impugned witness for recall;
  • the adequacy of an instruction to explain the relevance of failure to cross examine.

A trial judge may diminish the weight of the contradictory evidence. Other remedies include recalling the witness, and in the jury context, giving a specific instruction to the jury about the failure to comply with the rule as a factor to consider in assessing credibility.

Revoking a Grant of Probate

Revoking a Grant of Probate

Debsbiens v Smith Estate 2010 BCCA 392 discusses the concept of revoking a grant of probate, which typically involves one of two attacks, namely finding a defect in the process leading up to the grant of probate, such as failure to serve a beneficiary with notice, or submitting false, or fraudulent information to the court in support of the application.

One problem that can be encountered in such an application is that if the client cooperated with the initial application, they may be estopped from trying to attack the grant. – Hayes v Montreal Trust Company 1977 BCJ 1317.

A typical case where a grant of probate has been set aside for failure to provide notice to potential beneficiary was noted in Shaw v. Reinhart 2004 BCSC 588 were a plaintiff in a wills variation action alleged that she had been the deceased’s common-law spouse of the date of his death. The action was brought some 10 months after the grant of probate that was issued to the deceased sons. They had not provided the plaintiff was notice under the Estate Administration Act, as they took the position that the plaintiff was not the deceased common-law spouse of the date of death. The executors brought an application to strike the claim as having been brought outside the limitation. However, this application was rejected and the court instead granted the plaintiff leave to move to have the grant of probate revoked.

Similarly, in Somodi v Szabados 2007 BCSC 857 the plaintiff was found to be a common-law spouse of the deceased, but the executor and sole beneficiary under the will was the deceased son and did not acknowledge the plaintiff as the deceased common-law spouse, instead contending that the relationship was simply one of landlord and tenant. He did not provide the plaintiff was notice of his application for probate. The plaintiff commenced an action under the wills variation act more than two years after the grant of probate. The court held in favor of the plaintiff stating that it is the plaintiff’s position that where the status of a common-law spouse is at issue, notice under section 112 of the Estate Administration act must be given, and where it is not, the defendant is estopped from relying on the limitation defence.

As in the Shaw decision, the court concluded that where the status of a common-law spouse is at issue, notice under the estate administration act must be given and failure to do so, precludes reliance on the limitation period.

Grounds for revoking probate:

Courts have jurisdiction to revoke grants of probate where evidence discloses that the grant ought not to have been issued. There are numerous grounds which probate can be revoked such as:

  • where subsequent wills of been discovered;
  • it is been found that the will is otherwise invalid;
  • where it has been determined that the testator was not in fact dead;
  • where the executor was under a legal disability, such as being a minor or mentally infirmed,
  • and where probate has been obtained by fraud.

In short, where it is shown that a condition precedent to the grant of probate was not fulfilled, the court has jurisdiction to revoke the grant.

Ravenscroft v Ravenscroft 1670 1 Lev. 305, stated that the jurisdiction of the probate court to revote a grant of probate is quite broad, though it is be exercised sparingly. The court possesses and when it becomes necessary exercises the power of revoking or annulling for a just cause any grant which it has made, and in doing so, it only resumes into its own hands the powers which it parted with on false or inaccurate suggestions.

Court of Appeal Allows Courts to Interpret Trust Documents

Appeal JudgeCourt of Appeal Allows Courts to Interpret Trust Documents


The almost chestnut re Engleman Estate 1986 23 ETR 30, BCCA,

The will of the deceased made his two brothers co-executors and sole beneficiaries. A major asset of the estate was a farm on which the respondent brother resided. The will empowered the executors to sell and convert property of the estate into money. The petitioner wished to accept a third party’s offer to purchase the farm. The respondent wished to reject this offer and was himself prepared to offer to purchase the petitioner’s interest in the farm for an amount that equalled the proceeds the petitioner would receive from the third party purchaser.
The petitioner sought the direction of the Court pursuant to s. 88(1) of the Trustee Act (British Columbia). The respondent originally took the position that the Court had no jurisdiction under s. 88(1) to make an order directing the sale of the farm since that provision could not be used to decide a question affecting the rights of the parties to property. During the course of the argument, however, the respondent argued that the Court should direct the petitioner to accept the respondent’s offer to purchase his share.
At first instance it was held that the Court should direct the respondent to accept the third party’s offer since the result of the ensuing sale would be to give each party his legal entitlement under the will: this direction would, consequently, give effect to the parties’ rights. However, the Court did not have jurisdiction to require the petitioner to accept the respondent’s offer to purchase his interest: such a direction would alter the petitioner’s right under the will to require that the property be sold and converted into cash.
The respondent appealed.
The appeal was allowed.
The Judge at first instance incorrectly interpreted the will as containing a direction to sell the property rather than a discretionary power to do so. The executors were not bound to sell the estate and divide the proceeds in cash. It was open to them to distribute the estate in specie. Accordingly, a sale of the farm to one brother could not be said to frustrate the intention of the testator.
Moreover, the Judge was not restricted to the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to s. 88 of the Trustee Act. In the circumstances that there was a deadlock, the Court had an inherent equitable jurisdiction to intervene to break the deadlock.
The proper order to make was to direct the sale of the farm to the respondent at the same price as the third party had offered. This was just and equitable since the respondent had a particular and long-lasting connection with the property and he had a personal interest in being able to continue to reside on it. Such an order would not, moreover, cause any prejudice to the petitioner since it was established that the price offered was the proper market price and the sale would give to the petitioner his proper share of the value of that part of the estate.

Probate Procedure When Four Wills In Dispute

Re Dow Estate 2015 BCSC 292 an issue of probate procedure arose  due to the fact that the deceased made four wills in the last 2 1/2 years of his life.

The plaintiff was Disputed Willsnamed as a beneficiary in the first and third wills, but not the second or the final fourth will.

The applicant, who stood to inherit $255,000 at of an estate worth approximately $2.6 million, raised the issue of the testator’s capacity when he made his final will, as well as alleging undue influence.

The master found that the applicant met the threshold of Rule 25-2 (1) finding that there was a risk that the applicant would otherwise be prejudiced, since if probate were granted, that the estate could be distributed before her claim as to the alleged lack of mental capacity could be assessed.

Accordingly she was allowed to join in the court action.


14]         A person who is interested in an estate including an applicant for the estate grant (in this case, Mr. Cosar) could apply to set aside the notice of dispute pursuant to Rule 25-10(10). The court may remove the notice of dispute if the court determines that the filing is not in the best interests of the estate (Rule 25-10(11)). Whether the court might consider setting the notice of dispute aside on terms which protect Ms. Golos’s interests and at the same time allowing for an interim distribution remains to be seen. Also, s. 103 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act provides for the court-supervised administration of an estate pending legal proceedings concerning the validity of a will. If those procedures are invoked, then the administration of the estate can move forward pending the applicant’s investigation of her concerns about mental incapacity and undue influence.

[15]         The applicant has met the threshold required by Rule 25-2(14). There is a risk that if she is not included in the class of persons entitled to receive information about the estate and to file a notice of dispute, she will be prejudiced. The prejudice is the risk that Mr. Cosar will be granted probate and the estate will be distributed before the applicant’s claim can be assessed. That prejudice outweighs the possible delay in the distribution of the estate.

Lawyers Questionnaire Admitted Into Probate Will

questionnaireGarnett Estate v Garnett Estate 2013 BCSC 1731 is an interesting case where pre WESA, a lawyers questionnaire re will instructions was determined by the court to be a valid will and admitted into probate.

In this case the executrix brought an action to prove the will of the deceased in solemn form.

The deceased was in palliative care and it became apparent that she would not survive long enough to meet with a lawyer to complete a new will. She then had two witnesses sign the lawyers questionnaire left by the lawyer, which the deceased signed in the witnesses presence.

The will questionnaire did not have a residue clause, and in fact the two witnesses to the will were beneficiaries so they could not inherit under that document.

Nevertheless the court determined that the testamentary intention of the deceased was to make “a fixed and final expression as to the disposal of her property on death “( Das Estate 2012 NSSC 441 at para 18).

The court found that despite the unconventional form of the 2008 document and its original generation as a lawyers questionnaire which would ordinarily have led to the finalization of a more sophisticated document, the court found in the circumstances of the deceased demonstrated her obvious intention that the document constituted testamentary disposition.

Proof of a will in solemn form

[35] I quote from Gillis v. Ardies, 2009 BCSC 215 at paras. 19-20 per Parrett J.:

[19] In today’s process, proof in solemn form requires the executor (or the will’s proponents) to meet the evidentiary burden of proving the will before the court. In such a hearing the executor must satisfy the court by adducing evidence –

that the will in question was duly executed;
that the testator had the capacity to appreciate and understand its contents; and
that he had the ability to sign the will.
[20] In the present case, proving the will in solemn form is required to address the issue of whether or not portions of the writing are invalid, and to determine what, in fact, constitutes the will.

[36] I find the above a helpful summary of the steps I must take to deal with the application to prove Ms. Garnett’s will in solemn form.

No Lack of Capacity or Undue Influence – Will Admitted to Probate

Chang Estate v Chang 2013 BCSC 976 is a well considered judgement of Justice Dardi, who had extensive experience in estate litigation prior to her elevation to the Bench.

The testatrix,a widow, died in 2007 at age 98. She and her late husband had four children, and their only daughter the plaintiff, was the youngest. Their three sons were the defendants.

In 1998 the deceased and her husband purchased a house and put one son on title as a joint tenant with his parents. The testatrix and her husband never did live in that property, and that particular son collected the rent and prayed paid the property taxes and expenses , until 2004 when the testatrix paid two thirds of the property taxes and utilities.

In 1997 that sons, son sued his grand mother and grandfather over a dispute that had arisen regarding the property.

The matter went to trial in July 1999 and was dismissed.

The testatrix found those events very distressing and in January 1998 she and her husband severed the joint tenancy , leaving that son with a one third interest as a tenant in common.


The testatrix executed her will in July 2000, and her husband executed a reciprocal will at the same time.

The plaintiff was appointed the executrix, and the son with the one third interest in the property was given a $10 bequest, with the remainder of the estate being divided 30% to the plaintiff, 30% to one brother and 40% to the other brother.


The will explain the reasons for the minimal bequest to the one son, saying the testatrix and her husband had provided much assistance to him and had given him one third of the Surrey property, from which he had collected all of the rents for his own use.


The will also said that he and his family house have caused us much grief, heartache, and unhappiness and shame.


The plaintiff applied to prove the will and codicil dated July 2005 in solemn form.


The son challenged the validity of the will and codicil on the grounds that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity and that the will was a product of coercion and or undue influence.


The court held that the testatrix had proved on the balance of probabilities that the will was executed in compliance with the statutory formalities, that the testatrix knew and approved of the contents of the will, and that she had testamentary capacity.


The professionals who prepared the will gave evidence, and it was proven that both documents were executed after having been read to the testatrix, who appeared to understand the contents.


The law presume the testatrix knew and approved of the will and possess the requisite testamentary capacity.


The evidence of the testatrix physician and those who prepared the documents and attended upon execution also established attempted testamentary capacity.


No suspicious circumstances arose in the facts established by the evidence, nor was there any evidence of undue influence by the plaintiff or anyone else.

Legal Framework

[25] The Supreme Court of Canada in Vout v. Hay, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 876 clarified the principles with respect to the burden of proof in litigation regarding contested wills. The Court articulated the considerations which govern the interrelation of the doctrine of suspicious circumstances and the issues of testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, undue influence and fraud.

[26] In an action for proof of will in solemn form, the party propounding the will must prove on a balance of probabilities that the will was executed in compliance with the statutory formalities, that the will-maker knew and approved of the contents of the will and that the will-maker had testamentary capacity: Vout at paras. 19-20.

[27] In order to make a valid will, the will-maker must have a “baseline level of mental acuity” or a “disposing mind and memory”, sufficient to appreciate and comprehend the nature and effect of the essential elements of the testamentary act. This encompasses an appreciation of the claims of the persons who are the natural objects of her estate and the extent of her property of which she is disposing: Laszlo v. Lawton, 2013 BCSC 305 at para. 185; Banks v. Goodfellow (1870), L.R.5 Q.B. 549; Leger v. Poirier, [1944] S.C.R. 152 at 161. The assessment of whether a will-maker possesses testamentary capacity is a highly individualized inquiry and is a question of fact to be determined in all the circumstances: James v. Field, 2001 BCCA 267 at para. 51; Laszlo at para. 197.

[28] In certain circumstances, the propounder of the will, in discharging the burden of proof, is aided by a rebuttable presumption of validity. If the will was duly executed in accordance with the requisite statutory formalities after being read over to or by a testator who appeared to understand it, it is presumed the testator possessed the requisite testamentary capacity and knew and approved of its contents:Vout at para. 26.

[29] This presumption may be rebutted by evidence of “well-grounded suspicions”, referred to in the jurisprudence as “suspicious circumstances”, relating to one or more of the following circumstances:

(i) surrounding the preparation of the will;

(ii) tending to call into question the capacity of the will-maker; or

(iii) tending to show that the free will of the will-maker was overborne by acts of coercion or fraud: Vout at para. 25.

[30] If suspicious circumstances are established, then the presumption is spent and the legal burden of proof reverts to the propounder of the will. The propounder of the will then reassumes the legal burden of proving knowledge and approval, as well as proving testamentary capacity, if the suspicious circumstances reflect on the mental capacity of the will-maker to make a will: Woodward v. Grant, 2007 BCSC 1192 at para. 108. In order to discharge the burden, the propounder of the will is required to dispel the suspicious circumstances that have been raised: Ostrander v. Black (1996), 12E.T.R. (2d) 219 at para. 30 (Gen. Div.).

[31] In Vout, the Court affirmed that if a court determines that suspicious circumstances exist, the applicable standard of proof is a balance of probabilities. However, the evidence must be scrutinized in accordance with the gravity of the suspicion raised in any particular case.

[32] In order to rebut the presumption of validity, those attacking the will must meet the threshold of demonstrating that there is some evidence “which, if accepted, would tend to negative knowledge and approval or testamentary capacity”: Vout at para. 27; Maddess v. Racz, 2009 BCCA 539 at para. 31. The court in Scott v. Cousins (2001), 37 E.T.R. (2d) 113 (Ont. S.C.J.) describes the requisite evidence as that which “excites the suspicion of the court”. A “general miasma of suspicion that something unsavoury may have occurred” is insufficient to rebut the presumption of validity; the evidence must raise a “specific and focused suspicion”: Clark v. Nash (1989), 61 D.L.R. (4th) 409 at 425 (B.C.C.A.).

[33] The court in Laszlo provides the following instructive observations regarding the doctrine of suspicious circumstances at para. 207:

Suspicious circumstances have been found to exist in a wide array of situations and are not necessarily sinister in nature. There is no checklist of circumstantial factors that will invariably fit the classification. Commonly occurring themes include where a beneficiary is instrumental in the preparation of the will (especially where the beneficiary stands in a fiduciary position to the testator), or where the will favours “someone who has not previously been the object of [the testator’s] bounty and does not fall within the class of persons testators usually remember in their wills, that is to say their next of kin.

Undue Influence

[34] When undue influence or fraud is alleged, the party opposing probate always bears the legal burden of proving on a balance of probabilities the affirmative defence of undue influence: Vout at para. 28. It is important to appreciate that in these circumstances, the doctrine of suspicious circumstances and the shifting of the burden of proof has no application.

[35] In order to invalidate a will on the grounds of undue influence, the asserting party must prove that the influence exerted against the will-maker amounted to coercion, such that the will did not reflect the true intentions of a free will-maker and was not the product of the will-maker’s own act. The undue influence must constitute coercion which could not be resisted by the will-maker and which destroyed his or her free agency. It is well-established on the authorities that if the will-maker remains able to act freely, the exercise of significant advice or persuasion on the will-maker or an attempt to appeal to the will-maker or the mere desire of the will-maker to gratify the wishes of another, will not amount to undue influence: Maddess v. Racz, 2008 BCSC 1550 at para. 324 aff’d 2009 BCCA 539; Freeman v. Freeman (1889), 19 O.R. 141 at 155 (C. A.); Scott at para. 112.

Administration Durante Absentia

Section 7 of the Estate Administration Act allows the court to appoint a person to administer an estate or part of it where an executor resides out of the province “and it appears to the court to be necessary or convenient by reason of the insolvency of the estate of the deceased or other special circumstances.”

 Administration Durante Absentia

Section 11 provides: .(1) This section applies if

(a) the executor to whom probate of a will has been granted, or


(b) the administrator to whom administration of an estate has been granted,


is residing outside British Columbia at the end of 12 calendar months from the death of the deceased.


(2) A creditor, spouse, next of kin or legatee may apply to the court for an order under subsection (3), on an affidavit setting out


(a) the capacity in and the grounds on which the applicant applies, and


(b) that delay is being caused in the administration of the estate of the testator or intestate, owing to the absence of the executor or administrator from British Columbia.


(3) On application under subsection (2), the court may grant to the applicant special administration of the estate of the deceased person, either general or limited, and on the terms as to notice and security as the court thinks fit.


(4) Subsections (1) to (3) do not abridge the powers of the court as defined in preceding sections.


(5) If an executor capable of acting returns to British Columbia and becomes resident in British Columbia when an application under subsection (2) is pending, the executor must be made a party to the application, and the costs incurred by granting administration under subsection (3) are in the discretion of the court.


(6) A person to whom administration is granted under subsection (3) has the same powers as an administrator appointed pending the minority of the next of kin.


(7) Pending an application for the grant of special administration under subsection (3) the court may appoint a person to collect any debts or effects due to the estate and to give discharges for them.


(8) A person appointed under subsection (7) must give security as the court orders for the proper discharge of the person’s duties.


s.11(2) A creditor, spouse, next of kin or legatee may apply to the court for an order under subsection (3), on an affidavit setting out(a) the capacity in and the grounds on which the applicant applies, and

(b) that delay is being caused in the administration of the estate of the testator or
intestate, owning to the absence of the executor or administrator from British Columbia.


Such a grant has been held to continue in force after the death of the original personal representative. (Taynton v. Hannay (1802) 3 Bos. & P26).


The application is made by way of a requisition and should be accompanied by an affidavit setting out the capacity in and the grounds upon which the applicant applies, and that the delay has been caused in the administration of the estate due to the absence of the personal representative from the province. Notice should be given to any person who has received a prior grant.


The grant is usually limited to the time at which the absentee returns to the province.


If an executor or administrator has disappeared (as opposed to being absent from the province) an application for revocation of the grant and issuance of a further grant under s. 7 of the Estate Administration Act may be advisable.

Administration By Attorney

administration by attorneyRule 21 (27) provides for the administration of an estate by an attorney.:

“ If a person entitled to administration resides outside British Columbia, administration by attorney, or administration with the will annexed, may be granted to the person or the person’s attorney acting under a power of attorney”.

The attorney need not be a resident of British Columbia, and such a grant generally will not be made to an attorney residing in the same jurisdiction as the donor.


In re Edmundson Estate 1963, 44 WWR 119 (BCSC) , the court commented at page 123 that the case law:

“suggests that if the principal and the attorney are both resident in the same place, the court would prefer the principle be appointed rather than the attorney. In other words, the provision for the appointment of an attorney is an additional right given to the person otherwise entitled to the administration to have an attorney appointed if the residence of the person otherwise entitled out of the jurisdiction makes it difficult for that person to perform his or her duties.”

The grant is limited for the use and benefit of the person who appoints the attorney and until that person applies for administration in British Columbia.


Administration by an attorney might be used when the person entitled to the administration has one or more of the following criteria:


A. Has language difficulties that may prevent him or her effectively handling the estate in British Columbia;

B. May be difficult to contact for the purpose of providing instructions are executing documents;

C. May have difficulty dealing with assets in this jurisdiction ie running an active business.

If there are several persons entitled to the grant, all residents of the jurisdiction, the grant may be made to the attorney of one, but subject to the consent of the others. Such an attorney is not merely the agent of the principal, but is responsible for the due administration of the assets and is liable to be called to account by the persons interested in the estate.

Administration Ad Colligenda Bona

Several years ago had an estate where the deceased had substantial assets that needed protection, while it took in excess of two years to locate his very distant next of kin in the far-off Ukraine. He had died intestate and no person came forward to be appointed administrator of the estate.

In these situations where there is a delay in the appointment of a general administrator and it is necessary for the protection of the estate that someone be empowered to protect the assets, then the court may well appoint an administrator ad colligenda bona.

This type of grant and is typically made when situations arise where either there is no one to be appointed administrator, or they cannot be located, or they have refused to accept a grant of administration.


The grant may even be made to a creditor or to a friend of the deceased, as the main purpose is to protect the assets until a proper administrator can be found and appointed.


The grant is usually limited to a particular purpose and time until the jungle until the general grant is made. It is for the administration only, the will is not proved her annexed, and bonding is generally required.

In Re Shalapay 3 BCLR 3d 217 the Court held that an Administratrix is entitled to reasonable remuneration for services performed as administratrix and as solicitor.

There is no statutory authority for the appointment of an administrator ad colligenda bona. However, the scope of the appointment is similar in nature to that of an administrator pendente lite. If the estate is large, a percentage fee as contemplated by s. 90 of the Trustee Act would be ridiculous. On the other hand, if the estate were small, a percentage fee might be insufficient.

An administratrix ad colligenda bona should be entitled to reasonable remuneration rather than a percentage of the estate for her work as administratrix and to her reasonable fees as solicitor. Her accounts as solicitor would be subject to review under the Legal Profession Act.

What Is Double Probate?

Executors frequently appoint more than one person as his or her personal representative, and on occasion not all parties who are entitled to apply for probate actually do. However at the same time they do not renounce their executor ship and reserve the right to apply at a later date.

If that executor does apply for probate at a later date, the new grant is called a double probate, that runs concurrently with the earlier grant, assuming one or more of the first executors to probate is still living.


The applicant for the double probate includes only the un- administered estate in his or her affidavit. The affidavit must also give particulars of the early grant of probate, and show that the power to him or her to apply was in fact reserved in the earlier grant.


The same notice of intention to apply for probate pursuant to section 112 of the Estate Administration act must be sent to all interested parties again, along with the appropriate supporting materials.

While textbook authors have stated that in theory one executor may apply for a grant of probate without notifying the other executors, in practice it is doubtful that a court would make such an order without notice, as it is important that the executors who are not appointed, reserve their right to apply at a later date, and that the right is specifically stated in the initial grant of probate.