Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction over property and unjust enrichment claims between former common law partners, and whether the dispute must proceed in Family Court rather than by civil application.
• Competing positions on a purchase money resulting trust, where the applicant alone funded the purchase and upkeep but the property was put in joint names.
• Respondent’s reliance on unjust enrichment and joint family venture doctrines, based on her alleged financial, labour, and management contributions to the income property.
• Significance of documentary and testimonial evidence on intention at the time of acquisition, including emails, mortgage documents, tax returns, leases, and communications with the lawyer and tenants.
• Treatment of late affidavit evidence and cross-examination timing, and the court’s willingness to admit additional affidavit material to clarify intention and relationship context.
• Consequences of the court’s decision to transfer the proceeding to Family Court, including deeming pleadings transferred, directing a case conference, and reserving all costs and substantive ownership issues.

Factual background

The case arises out of a dispute between former common law partners, Guy Lacroix (applicant) and Martine Plouffe (respondent), over ownership of an income-producing triplex at 65 Stirling Avenue in Ottawa. They began dating in July 2018 and had an on-and-off relationship with periods of cohabitation at a rental unit on Lyon Street. Although there is disagreement about the exact length of cohabitation, the respondent says they separated by April 2021. During the relationship, they did not maintain joint bank accounts or joint savings. In June 2019, the applicant inherited $150,000 from his late father and wished to use part of that inheritance to purchase an income property where units could be rented and one unit could serve as a residence. Because his employment income was inconsistent, a mortgage broker advised him that he could not qualify on his own and needed a co-borrower who would also be on title. After his mother declined to participate, he asked the respondent, who agreed to be co-signor. Both parties then became involved in the purchase process.

Acquisition of the Stirling Avenue property

The parties signed an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a purchase price of $750,000. A down payment of $25,000 was provided entirely by the applicant, and he also paid the remaining closing funds of approximately $62,539 together with transaction costs such as the home inspection. A joint mortgage application was completed on November 14, 2019, stating that the property would be used as a conjugal home. Mortgage approval issued on November 26, 2019, for about $695,925 with a 25-year amortization at 2.6% interest, and the transaction closed on December 2, 2019. Both parties went on title as joint tenants. They do not recall being specifically advised to obtain independent legal advice or to sign a bare trust agreement, but the conveyancing lawyer sent them material explaining options such as holding as joint tenants or tenants in common, and there was documented discussion about how title would be taken. The applicant’s financial records show that after closing he paid the mortgage by pre-authorized payments of about $3,183.74 per month, as well as the property taxes, water charges, and most renovation and repair expenses. Rental income from the three units was deposited into his accounts and reported on his tax returns. Utilities and insurance arrangements were somewhat shared, with the respondent initially arranging TD insurance in both names and paying premiums through her account before coverage was later moved to the applicant alone.

Positions of the parties

The applicant’s position is that he is the true sole owner of the property, notwithstanding that the respondent is on title as a joint tenant. He argues that he alone funded the purchase, paid carrying costs, and received the rental income as his own. On his account, the respondent was added to title only because the lender required a co-borrower, and there was a mutual understanding that she would not acquire a beneficial interest in the property and would not contribute to its costs. He therefore seeks declarations that he is the sole owner, that her registered interest is subject to a resulting trust in his favour, and that her name should be removed from title, together with orders allowing him to execute documents on her behalf to effect the transfer if necessary. The respondent counters that she ought not to be treated as a mere name on paper. She argues that she assumed significant risk by using her stronger credit profile to qualify the mortgage as primary borrower, thereby encumbering her credit for several years and limiting her access to other financing. She also says that she made financial contributions through payments for insurance, household expenses and property-related purchases, and that she devoted substantial time and effort to managing tenants, organizing renovations, and day-to-day operations. Based on these contributions, she claims unjust enrichment and asserts that the parties were engaged in a joint family venture centered on the property and their life together. She also maintains that, as a joint tenant, she is prima facie entitled to a one-half interest and that any adjustments should be determined in Family Court.

Evidence bearing on intention and contributions

The judge reviewed a substantial evidentiary record but expressly declined to make final findings of fact, emphasizing that the review was only to assist the future Family Court judge. On the applicant’s side, the documentary evidence includes his bank statements confirming that he funded the down payment, closing costs, and ongoing mortgage and property expenses, as well as tax returns reflecting that all rental income and related expenses were reported solely by him. Leases list him as landlord, and correspondence with the City of Ottawa shows him as responsible for utilities. The respondent did not dispute that he paid these major costs and collected the rent. There is also a July 2020 email from the respondent stating that the property “belonged to him,” though she later explained this as something she said to calm him because of mental health issues. On the respondent’s side, she produced extensive documentation of her role in the acquisition and management of the property. This includes emails with the mortgage broker and lawyer showing that she was treated as the primary borrower and that her creditworthiness improved the financing package; evidence that she explored refinancing her own condominium to contribute more to the down payment; and communications with the conveyancing lawyer about how title should be taken. She provided emails with tenants and tradespeople showing that she advertised units, screened tenants, handled move-in inspections, coordinated repairs, and managed issues such as plumbing, electrical work, and window replacement. Her bank and credit card statements show payments to insurance providers, hardware stores, and furniture and appliance retailers (including a fridge and major kitchen purchases), which she says were for the benefit of the rental units. She also filed an affidavit from her mother, who stated she performed unpaid manual labour on renovations. Overall, the evidence paints two overlapping narratives: one in which the applicant bore almost all hard costs and treated the property as his investment, and one in which the respondent leveraged her credit and contributed both financially and through substantial unpaid work and management.

Legal framework: resulting trusts, unjust enrichment, and joint family venture

The decision sets out, in general terms, the legal principles that will govern the eventual merits hearing. On the resulting trust side, the judge refers to Supreme Court of Canada and Ontario Court of Appeal authorities confirming that equity presumes bargains rather than gifts, particularly when an unrelated person advances funds but title is taken in someone else’s name. A purchase money resulting trust can arise where a person contributes to the purchase price or mortgage but does not take, or does not intend another party to keep, beneficial title. The presumption is that the contributor retains a beneficial interest proportionate to the contribution unless there is proof of an intention to make a gift. Joint tenancy and a right of survivorship alone do not rebut the presumption of resulting trust, and the court may look at later conduct as evidence of original intention, while being cautious about self-serving after-the-fact accounts. On the unjust enrichment side, the judge quotes from Cameron v. Vincent and Kerr v. Baranow, outlining the three-part test: (1) a benefit to the respondent, (2) a corresponding deprivation to the claimant, and (3) no juristic reason for the enrichment. If unjust enrichment is established, the primary remedy is a monetary award; a proprietary remedy by way of constructive trust is reserved for cases where a money award would be insufficient or inappropriate. The decision also describes the “joint family venture” concept. Where unmarried spouses have effectively conducted their lives as partners in a shared enterprise and one partner has contributed significantly to wealth accumulation, the court may calculate a monetary remedy based on “value surviving,” that is, the claimant’s proportionate contribution to the surviving wealth. Establishing a joint family venture requires proof, on the facts, that the parties structured their relationship and financial affairs in that way and that one party is retaining a disproportionate share of property attributable to joint efforts.

Jurisdictional issue and transfer to Family Court

Although the parties initially proceeded by way of civil application in the Superior Court’s general division, the respondent raised a preliminary jurisdictional challenge, arguing that the dispute should be transferred to Family Court. She relied on the facts that the parties were in a conjugal relationship when the property was purchased, that she was a common law spouse, and that her claims for unjust enrichment and joint family venture fall squarely within the category of property and equitable claims between cohabitants reserved to Family Court under the Courts of Justice Act. The applicant, by contrast, sought to have the civil court determine his resulting trust and title claims directly, urging the court to grant declarations in his favour and remove the respondent from title. The judge agreed with the respondent on the jurisdictional question. Applying section 21.8 of the Courts of Justice Act and its accompanying Schedule, the court held that, in jurisdictions where Family Court has been established, all proceedings for relief by way of constructive or resulting trust or monetary awards for unjust enrichment between persons who have cohabited must be commenced, heard, and determined in Family Court. Because this property dispute arose from a conjugal relationship and because unjust enrichment was clearly a live issue, the court concluded that Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction.

Outcome and implications for the parties

In the result, the judge did not decide whether the applicant is sole owner, whether the respondent has a beneficial share, or whether unjust enrichment or a joint family venture exists. Instead, the court ordered that the proceeding be transferred to Family Court. All pleadings already filed are deemed to be pleadings in the Family Court, and the parties must attend a case conference there to address next steps and the appropriate procedure, including the possibility of a summary judgment determination on a paper record. The court declined to decide costs at this stage, stating that it would be premature and reserving costs to the trial judge. The judge also indicated a willingness to conduct a settlement conference in Family Court if the parties request it. As a result, there is no final “winner” on the substantive property and unjust enrichment issues yet. Procedurally, the ruling favours the respondent’s position that the matter belongs in Family Court and that her unjust enrichment and joint family venture claims must be considered alongside the applicant’s resulting trust claim. No damages, compensation, or costs have been awarded or quantified in this decision, so the total monetary award in favour of any party at this stage is zero and the ultimate financial outcome remains to be determined by the Family Court.