Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute centered on whether a property purchased with the mother’s funds was a gift or held in trust.

• The presumption of a resulting trust applied due to the gratuitous transfer from a parent to an adult child.

• Determining the mother’s intent at the time of transfer was key to rebutting the presumption.

• Text message evidence and oral testimony were heavily relied upon to assess credibility and intention.

• The applicant’s credibility was undermined by inconsistencies and post-transfer conduct.

• The court found a valid inter vivos gift had been made and could not be revoked.

Facts and background

The applicant, Veronica Balkisson, is the mother of four living children and one deceased child. Her eldest son, Stefan Sandy, and his wife, Andrea, are the respondents. Veronica had received over $1.2 million from the expropriation of her Wheatley property in early 2024. She intended to distribute this windfall among her children equally, referencing $420,000 allotments in a handwritten will and subsequent text messages. A property located at 78 Lambeth Street in Brampton was purchased in Stefan’s name using Veronica’s funds.

Veronica later claimed she never intended the property to be a gift, but that Stefan was holding it in trust for her and/or other beneficiaries under her estate plan. She sought a declaration of resulting trust and an order transferring title back to her. Stefan, in contrast, argued that Veronica had intentionally gifted the funds to him and his sister Heaven in advance of her death, as part of their inheritance. He asserted that Veronica changed her mind only after a breakdown in family relations, particularly between Veronica and Andrea.

Court's analysis of intent and evidence

The court applied the legal framework established in Pecore v. Pecore, which presumes a resulting trust when a parent makes a gratuitous transfer to an adult child. The onus was on Stefan to rebut that presumption by proving that the transfer was intended as a gift. The court emphasized that determining intent is a fact-driven exercise and considered a large body of contemporaneous text messages between the parties.

The messages showed that Veronica frequently referred to the $420,000 given to Stefan and Heaven as an inheritance gift. She actively supported their property search, discussed the split of inheritance funds, and even drafted repayment plans for the portion of the purchase price that exceeded the gifted amount. The repayment plan did not apply to the $840,000 gifted, reinforcing the conclusion that it was not a loan or trust arrangement.

Veronica argued that she changed her mind about the gift after an incident of domestic violence by her boyfriend and subsequent conflict with Andrea. However, the court found her evidence lacked credibility. She had not moved into the Lambeth property, made contradictory statements, and continued to refer to the gift arrangement well after the transfer. Heaven’s supporting evidence was also found to be unreliable and influenced by her close relationship with Veronica.

Outcome and decision

The court concluded that Stefan had successfully rebutted the presumption of a resulting trust. It found that Veronica had clearly intended to make a gift of $420,000 each to Stefan and Heaven, which was used to purchase the property. The remaining amount used to complete the purchase was treated as a loan, but the gifted portion was not subject to repayment or further obligation.

Accordingly, the court dismissed Veronica’s application. Stefan and Heaven were declared the beneficial owners of the property, and Stefan retained legal title. The court reaffirmed the principle that a valid gift, once made, cannot be revoked simply because the donor later regrets it or becomes dissatisfied with the recipient’s behavior.