Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Gilles Trépanier claimed that Céline Allaire held two investment accounts — a TFSA (CELI) and a margin account (Marge) — as his nominee (prête-nom) throughout their approximately 34-year relationship, and sought return of the remaining balance of $348,593.69 upon separation.
• Central to the dispute was whether a nominee agreement (convention de prête-nom) obligated the defendant to return all funds held in the CELI and Marge accounts to the plaintiff upon separation.
• Credibility was a decisive issue, as the defendant's trial testimony contradicted her prior out-of-court admissions that the funds in those accounts belonged to the plaintiff.
• Rejected was the plaintiff's claim for compound interest of $177,383.74, characterised as lost investment opportunity, as Article 1617 of the Civil Code of Québec limits damages for delayed monetary payment to legal interest only.
• The RRSP (REER) claim of $66,827.30 failed because the plaintiff could not establish by preponderant evidence that a nominee agreement applied to that account or that it was jointly held.
• Unproven for lack of supporting evidence were the remaining claims for a capital loss tax refund of $19,353 and an income-splitting tax refund of $3,400.

Facts of the case

Gilles Trépanier and Céline Allaire began their common-law relationship in 1988 and separated in September 2022, after approximately 34 years together. Throughout the relationship, the plaintiff — who had ceased working before the couple moved in together and managed his own online investment portfolio — opened two investment accounts in the defendant's name at Desjardins Courtage en ligne: a tax-free savings account (CELI) and a margin account (Marge). A registered retirement savings plan (REER) was also held at Desjardins in the defendant's name. The plaintiff held a power of attorney over all three accounts, allowing him to conduct transactions on them. He maintained that he was the true owner of the funds in the CELI and Marge accounts and that the defendant acted as his nominee to reduce his taxable income — a practice the defendant herself acknowledged during her examination out of court.

As of July 31, 2022, the combined value of the three accounts stood at $1,418,438.27: the Marge account held $1,206,773.24, the CELI held $115,386.87, and the REER held $96,278.16. On August 24, 2022, the defendant remitted $465,000 to the plaintiff without objection, acknowledging at the time that the money belonged to him. On November 9, 2022, she remitted a further $500,000 — but only after the plaintiff signed a document she had prepared on September 26, 2022, in which she declared herself the sole and exclusive owner of the CELI and Marge accounts. The plaintiff signed that document solely to recover a portion of the funds he considered his own. In total, $965,000 was returned to the plaintiff. He then sought a judgment ordering the defendant to pay the remaining balance of $348,593.69, along with several additional claims.

Contractual clauses and arrangements at issue

The central arrangement was an oral — and allegedly written — nominee agreement (convention de prête-nom) between the parties. The plaintiff testified that a written agreement had been stored with his will, stipulating that the defendant would return all invested amounts held in her name upon his request or in the event of separation, and that the defendant had taken the document upon leaving. The defendant acknowledged having signed a "paper" but denied having it in her possession and claimed not to recall its contents. Under Article 1451 of the Civil Code of Québec, a secret agreement prevails over the apparent contract as between the parties. Additionally, the document the defendant prepared on September 26, 2022 (Exhibit P-3), while asserting her ownership of the accounts, included a clause acknowledging that "a negotiation should take place regarding the consequences incurred due to the financial manipulations made in Ms. Allaire's name" — language the court found corroborated the plaintiff's position.

The plaintiff also sought compound interest of $177,383.74 — calculated based on his actual portfolio returns of 13.79% in 2023 and 32.60% in 2024 — as a lost opportunity to generate investment returns. The court assessed this claim against Article 1617 of the Civil Code of Québec, which limits damages for delayed payment of a monetary obligation to interest at the agreed rate or, absent agreement, the legal rate; additional damages are only available where expressly stipulated.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court found the defendant's trial testimony unreliable, citing numerous contradictions and implausibilities. Most significantly, the defendant had acknowledged during her examination out of court that both the $465,000 and the $500,000 she remitted belonged to the plaintiff — yet at trial she reversed course and claimed ownership of all funds on the basis that the accounts were registered in her name. The court found this position irreconcilable with the parties' established pattern of financial conduct: they always maintained separate bank accounts, the defendant never received gifts of money from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had formally demanded repayment of loans totalling $15,664 made between 2007 and 2014. The suggestion that the plaintiff would simultaneously lend small amounts while gifting approximately $1.3 million was found to be implausible. The court further noted that Exhibit P-3 — the defendant's own declaration of ownership — undermined her position by expressly referencing "financial manipulations" made in her name, without once mentioning a gift.

By contrast, the plaintiff's testimony was found to be credible, frank, and consistent with the parties' admitted lifestyle. The court concluded that a preponderant body of evidence established the existence of a nominee agreement covering the CELI and Marge accounts, under which the defendant was obligated to return those funds. The defendant's own admissions during cross-examination corroborated this finding.

The claim for compound interest of $177,383.74 was dismissed. Article 1617 C.c.Q. provides that damages for delayed payment consist only of interest at the legal rate or any agreed rate, and additional damages are available only where expressly stipulated — a condition not met here. The REER claim of $66,827.30 likewise failed: the court found that the account was held solely in the defendant's name, that no nominee agreement had been proven in respect of it, and that the plaintiff produced no documentation supporting his alleged contributions of approximately $25,000. The claims for a capital loss tax refund of $19,353 and an income-splitting tax refund of $3,400 were also dismissed for want of any supporting evidence.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court allowed the plaintiff's action in part. Gilles Trépanier was awarded $348,593.69, representing the unpaid balance from the CELI and Marge accounts following the defendant's earlier payments totalling $965,000. That amount carries legal interest plus the additional indemnity under Article 1619 C.c.Q., running from December 1, 2022 — the date the formal demand (mise en demeure) was received. All remaining claims were dismissed. Costs (frais de justice) were awarded in the plaintiff's favour.