Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central issue was whether Millie Lajeunesse retained an ownership interest in the property at her death for inclusion in her estate.

• Presumption of resulting trust applied to the 2010 transfer from Millie to Gary Lajeunesse, as there was no consideration and no evidence of intent to gift.

• Incomplete and conflicting affidavit evidence, as well as lack of cross-examinations and lawyer testimony, limited the court’s ability to resolve factual disputes.

• The 2016 transfer to Gary and Millie as joint tenants was questioned by Gary, who claimed it was done without his knowledge, but the reporting letter contradicted this claim.

• Millie’s will dated August 25, 2022, left her estate to Arnold Lajeunesse, with no specific mention of the property, and revoked all previous wills.

• The court ordered that title to the property be transferred into Millie’s name to be dealt with as part of her estate, with no order as to costs.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and family context

This case concerns a dispute among family members over the disposition of a property at 50 Spring Street, Sturgeon Falls, Ontario, following the death of Millie Lajeunesse on September 25, 2022. Millie and her husband, Terrance Lajeunesse, originally owned the property as joint tenants from 1972 until Terry’s death in 2009, after which Millie became the sole owner. The applicant, Gary Lajeunesse, is Millie’s son. The respondents are Arnold Lajeunesse (another son) and Arnold’s children, Kasey and Kirby Lajeunesse. Arnold had lived in the property since 2004, Kirby moved in around 2016, and Kasey moved in August 2022. Gary lived separately at 1195 Highway 17, Sturgeon Falls.

Property transfers and estate planning

In 2010, Millie transferred the property to Gary for $1, using lawyer David Stewart. The reporting letter indicated both parties were family and the transaction was completed on an “as is” basis without searches or adjustments. In 2016, the property was transferred to Gary and Millie as joint tenants, again using Mr. Stewart. Gary claimed this 2016 transfer was done without his knowledge, but the reporting letter stated Mr. Stewart acted for both transferor and transferees and had authority to register the document. After Millie’s death, Gary registered a survivorship application, putting the property solely in his name as surviving joint tenant.

Millie’s will, dated August 25, 2022, and prepared by lawyer Andrea Bain, revoked all previous wills. Other than a portrait left to her daughter, Shirley Beaudette, the estate was left to Arnold, or if he was not living at her death, to her surviving children in equal shares. There was no specific mention of the property. Gary alleged that at the time of the will, Millie and Kasey had signed documents to transfer the property to Kasey for $1,500, but he refused to sign.

Positions of the parties

Gary sought an order for possession of the property, a declaration that the respondents were trespassers, a declaration that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply, and costs. He claimed Millie transferred the property to him in 2010 so he could sell it and share the proceeds with his siblings, after giving Arnold two months to find an apartment. Gary stated Millie did not want Arnold to be “on the street.” He also asserted the 2016 transfer was done without his knowledge.

The respondents, through Kasey, filed a cross-application seeking an order for possession by Arnold as per Millie’s August 25, 2022 will. Kasey submitted that Arnold provided caretaking, lived rent-free, and Millie wanted to ensure Arnold would have somewhere to live. Kasey also filed a December 22, 2022 email from Andrea Bain, stating that Gary was added to the property for estate planning purposes and not as a true owner, and that the property should transfer according to Millie’s will.

Legal analysis and policy discussion

The court addressed whether a resulting trust existed. When a parent transfers property to an adult child for no consideration, the presumption is that the child holds the property in trust for the parent, unless there is evidence of an intention to gift. The onus was on Gary to rebut this presumption. The court found that Millie’s intention in 2010 was for Gary to hold the property for her benefit, particularly for Arnold’s benefit, and not as a gift. The 2016 transfer and Millie’s actions before her death further showed her intent to control the property for Arnold’s benefit. The court found Gary’s claim that the 2016 transfer was a fraud upon him by Millie and her lawyer to be incredible, as the reporting letter contradicted this assertion.

Outcome and order

The court concluded that Gary had not rebutted the presumption of resulting trust. The property remained Millie’s at her death and was included in her estate. Millie’s will left her estate to Arnold. The court ordered that title to the property be transferred into Millie’s name to be dealt with as part of her estate. The court did not order the transfer to Kasey but noted it would be open to Arnold to arrange for that. There was no order as to costs. No specific monetary amount was determined in the decision.