The parents had no intent to give the assets as a gift to the married couple: court
The Ontario Superior Court ruled that the parents of a man in a brief marriage are the sole owners of two Ottawa properties and a luxury SUV, finding no intent to gift the assets despite their registration under family members’ names for practical reasons.
The case centred on a dispute over ownership of the properties and a Lincoln SUV following the separation of the couple, who had been married for just over a year, with only seven months of cohabitation. The court found that the parents, who are Chinese citizens, purchased the assets entirely with their own funds and intended to retain ownership despite registering the properties and vehicle under their son's and daughter-in-law's names for practical reasons.
The parents moved to Canada in 2019, bringing their life savings with the intention of purchasing a home to retire near Ottawa. Due to legal and logistical barriers, they registered the first property in their son's name. The court heard that the son, who was financially dependent on his parents, did not contribute to the purchase. The parents later bought a second property and a Lincoln SUV, with both assets registered under various combinations of family members’ names to facilitate legal formalities and immigration benefits.
The ex-wife argued that her name on the title of the second property and the SUV indicated a gift. She also alleged ownership of a share in the assets based on her involvement in the family. However, the court rejected these claims, ruling that no evidence supported an intention to gift her or the son ownership interests.
The Superior Court determined that the presumption of a resulting trust applied, meaning the parents retained beneficial ownership despite whose names appeared on legal documents. It found that the parents' actions were driven by practical considerations, such as the son's residency application and insurance regulations, rather than any intent to transfer ownership.
In the case of the Ottawa properties, the court concluded that the parents were the sole financial contributors and beneficiaries. Similarly, the Lincoln SUV, initially registered under the ex-wife's name for insurance purposes, was ruled to belong to the parents, who had funded and maintained the vehicle.
Ultimately, the court declared the parents the sole beneficial owners of the assets and directed the ex-wife to return proceeds from the unauthorized sale of the SUV.
