Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether a $500,000 transfer for home purchase was a gift, loan, or investment.

• Application of the presumption of resulting trust between family members and burden of proof to rebut it.

• Argument raised on appeal that corporate and personal intentions were improperly conflated at trial.

• Appeal dismissed because appellants were barred from shifting their trial position on corporate separateness.

• No palpable and overriding errors found in trial judge’s factual findings or legal analysis.

• Principles of consistency in pleadings, trial submissions, and appeals reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Facts of the case
The case involved a dispute between Avtar Singh Johal and his company, 672047 B.C. Ltd., against Harvinder Singh Johal and Susan Frances Little. In 2010, Avtar Johal, through his company, provided $500,000 to his son Harvinder Johal and daughter-in-law Susan Little to help them buy a family home. The funds were advanced by the company, but Mr. Johal's personal intentions were treated as central during trial. After Harvinder and Susan separated in 2018 and listed the home for sale, Avtar and the company sued, claiming that the funds were either an equity investment or a loan. In the alternative, they pleaded unjust enrichment.

Trial decision
The trial judge found, based on the pleadings, evidence, and submissions, that the funds were intended as a gift. The judge rejected the alternative claims of investment, loan, and unjust enrichment. The trial judge applied the presumption of resulting trust, which arises when a transfer is made from one party to another without clear evidence of intent to gift, and found that Susan Little had rebutted this presumption with sufficient evidence that a gift was intended.

Arguments on appeal
On appeal, Avtar Johal and his company argued that the trial judge erred by failing to separate the company’s legal personality from Avtar’s own, asserting that the intention of the company — not Avtar’s personal intention — should have been assessed. They further argued that the trial judge misapplied the burden of proof under the resulting trust framework and failed to properly explain the rejection of the corporate veil argument.

The Court of Appeal’s decision
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the appellants could not take a position on appeal that was inconsistent with the position they deliberately advanced at trial, where they had explicitly argued that Avtar’s subjective personal intention governed the characterization of the funds. The Court confirmed that taking contradictory positions between trial and appeal constitutes an abuse of process. Even if isolated misstatements occurred in the trial judgment regarding burdens of proof, the Court found these to be inconsequential when the reasons were read as a whole. The trial judge correctly required Susan Little to rebut the presumption of resulting trust and made reasonable factual findings in concluding that a gift had been intended. No palpable and overriding error in fact-finding was established. Consequently, the Court upheld the dismissal of the claims and awarded no relief to the appellants.

Conclusion
The Court of Appeal affirmed that the $500,000 provided for the home purchase was a valid gift. It reinforced that parties must maintain consistency in their litigation positions across trial and appeal and that appellate courts will not entertain re-litigation of issues masked as legal errors when the real dispute is over factual findings. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.