In finding that [the mother] had no money of her own, the trial judge conflated "income from paid employment" and "money". He confused the question of whether [the mother] had money with the source of her money, which at least in the early years was the paid employment of her adult children. He did not explain why or how, once the working children gave their paycheques to [the mother], the money remained "their" money. It was no longer their money because they made a gift of it to their mother, knowing she would use it to support the family. [The mother's] bank account was not a trust account. There was no evidence that the money was earmarked for specific purposes. Once the money was given to [the mother] it became "[the mother's] money".[4]

In Re Fawson Estate the burden was on the person challenging the Will to show suspicious circumstances. Once suspicious circumstances were established the burden shifted to the proponent of the Will to show that Margaret Fawson had testamentary capacity at the time of executing the Will. Appellate counsel in oral argument acknowledged that the burden in this proceeding is different. The burden remains on [the challenger of the designations], throughout, to show that Margaret Fawson did not have the capacity to execute the beneficiary designations. Unlike in Re Fawson Estate, there is no shifting burden.[4]