In Gruber v. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2025 ONSC 3088, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to interpret the will of Yaacov Glickman, a deceased academic who left his entire estate to support Jewish-Arab academic cooperation through an “endowment” at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The estate trustee, concerned about ambiguity in the testamentary language and the risk of the gift failing for uncertainty, brought an application for advice and directions.
Justice Papageorgiou ultimately upheld the gift, finding it was an outright charitable bequest and not void for uncertainty. The case highlights how courts interpret testamentary gifts to charities, especially when drafted without formal legal guidance.
The Facts
Yaacov Glickman died on June 10, 2022, with no children and having been predeceased by his wife, Anne Glickman, in December 2021. He left a will dated June 12, 2003, which named his close friend, Moshe Gruber, as estate trustee. The will directed that, upon his wife’s death, the residue—or entire estate—was to be used to establish an “endowment” at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The will also stated that his “entire estate shall be bequeathed” to the University to create a “foundation,” and included ten detailed “assumptions” describing the purpose of the gift: to support academic projects promoting peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs. Mr. Gruber, the estate trustee, brought an application for advice and directions out of concern that the gift might fail due to internal inconsistencies in the language used, including references to a “foundation,” a “trustee,” and whether the listed assumptions were binding conditions. If the gift to Hebrew University were to fail, the estate would pass on intestacy to distant relatives—two in Israel and one in the United States—none of whom responded to the application. The Hebrew University, however, responded to the application and confirmed its willingness and ability to receive and administer the gift according to the testator’s intentions.
The Law & Analysis
The Court applied well-established principles of will interpretation.
The primary objective is to determine and give effect to the testator’s intention, based on the words used in the will and the context in which the will was made.
Courts apply the “armchair rule”, meaning they place themselves in the position of the testator at the time the will was made, considering the testator’s knowledge, relationships, and circumstances. Where there is ambiguity or where technical language may obscure intention, the court may examine surrounding circumstances, even if the will’s wording is not obviously ambiguous. Courts also recognize a presumption against intestacy: if two interpretations are possible—one leading to intestacy and the other giving effect to a gift—the courts prefer the latter.
Furthermore, precatory language—that is, expressions of wish or hope, rather than clear obligations—will not be treated as creating legally binding trusts.
If a charitable purpose is identifiable but cannot be carried out exactly as written, courts may apply the cy-près doctrine to modify the terms in a way that closely aligns with the testator’s intent.
The Court found that the testator’s intention was clear: he wished to leave his estate to Hebrew University to support academic projects that promote peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs.
Although the will referred at various points to a “residue” and the “entire estate,” Justice Papageorgiou held that, because there were no specific gifts in the will, the two terms effectively referred to the same thing—the whole of the Deceased’s net estate.
The Court also addressed the reference to both an “endowment” and a “foundation.” Justice Papageorgiou held that these terms were used colloquially by the testator—an academic, not a legal or financial professional—and should not be interpreted as requiring the creation of a formal legal structure such as a trust or nonprofit corporation.
The Court further found that the so-called “assumptions” listed in the will were not binding legal conditions, but precatory statements—expressions of the testator’s hope about how the funds would be used.
The Court noted that the Hebrew University had confirmed its capacity to administer the gift in accordance with the testator’s goals and that its institutional infrastructure and ongoing academic programs aligned with the project described in the will. The reference to the estate trustee as a “Trustee” in the context of the academic selection committee was found to be descriptive, not a formal appointment to a new trust. His role was likely intended to be symbolic or advisory, rather than fiduciary. Finally, the Court emphasized that nothing in the will created the certainty of intention, subject matter, and object necessary to form a new trust. The language instead demonstrated an outright gift to Hebrew University. Accordingly, the Court ordered the trustee to distribute the estate to Hebrew University and authorized the university to administer the funds in keeping with the Deceased’s stated aspirations.
Lessons Learned
This decision confirms that testamentary intent will be upheld wherever possible, even if the will is imperfectly drafted. Charitable gifts should not fail for technical or interpretive shortcomings if the testator’s purpose is reasonably clear. Precatory language does not invalidate a gift; it may guide but not legally bind the recipient, particularly where the recipient institution is capable and willing to comply. Estate trustees who face uncertainty should not hesitate to bring applications for advice and directions, as doing so provides protection and helps ensure that the estate is properly administered. Lastly, this case demonstrates the importance of interpreting wills holistically and practically, with sensitivity to both the testator’s background and the charitable purpose underlying the bequest.
At Bobila Walker Law, we represent clients in a full range of estate litigation matters, including will challenges, trustee disputes, guardianship applications, power of attorney abuse, and dependent support claims. Whether you are a beneficiary, estate trustee, or concerned family member, we offer clear, strategic advice tailored to your objectives. Our team is committed to resolving complex estate disputes efficiently and with integrity, both inside and outside the courtroom. Contact us at 416-847-1859.
