In Morden v. Niwranski,[1] the Ontario Superior Court was compelled to consider the parameters surrounding the presumption of a resulting trust, and what must be proven in order to rebut that presumption.
Facts
The case revolved around the Estate of Giuseppe Lagana (the “Deceased”), who died intestate (without a formal Will) on January 22, 2021, at the age of 59. The Application was commenced by the Deceased’s only daughter, Amanda Morden (the “Applicant”) against Ingrid Niwranski (the “Respondent”), who had been cohabiting with the Deceased at the time of his death.
The Deceased and the Applicant, despite being father and daughter, were not close. The Deceased met the Respondent in 2018 and began a romantic relationship, which as per the Respondent’s evidence, lasted until his death in 2021. The Deceased had been living in British Columbia when he had first met the Respondent in June 2018 but had moved in with the Respondent 2 months later at her home in Cambridge Ontario. The relationship continued until Lagana’s hospitalization in January 2021 and subsequent death, with both parties referring to each other as husband and wife, considering themselves common law spouses.
Conversely, there was little to no contact between the Deceased and the Applicant from 2018 until his death, and she had received no gifts or financial contributions from him in the 10 years before his death.
At some time in October of 2018, the Deceased decided to sell his home in British Columbia, to move in full time to Ontario with the Respondent. He returned to BC to arrange the sale, and the house was ultimately sold in March of 2019, for $342,000. The proceeds of the sale were deposited into an investment account.
A year later, in May of 2019, the Deceased made the Respondent the beneficiary of his Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) and his Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA). Following that, in September of 2019, the Deceased and the Respondent opened joint investment accounts, set up in both their names with a right of survivorship. The deceased then deposited $206,551.33 into the joint account. Notably, no contributions whatsoever were made by the Respondent to these accounts. Following this, the Respondent had asked the Deceased to prepare a Will, although the Deceased declined to do so. However, during their meeting with a financial advisor, the Deceased indicated that he wished for the Respondent to receive his assets.
Legal Principles of a Resulting Trust
While considering the facts, the court went into an analysis on the legal principles surrounding resulting trusts. The doctrine of resulting trust is central in this case, as it would ultimately govern the determination of beneficial ownership of the joint account.
A resulting trust arises when one person holds legal title to a property, but equity recognizes that the beneficial or “true” owner should revert to another.[2] This typically would involve the property reverting to the person who provided the purchase money. The trust would result back to the original owner because the recipient either gave no value for the property or is found to be in a fiduciary duty.[3]
The Applicant here, is claiming that there is a resulting trust in the joint account that would act to revert the property back the Deceased’s estate rather than remain with the Respondent, who had full ownership of the account by way of survivorship. This was a consequential decision, as the Deceased died without a Will, so if the account would remain with the Deceased’s Estate, the rules of intestacy could operate to entitle the Applicant to a portion of that account.[4]
As Justice Taylor laid out in this case, equity presumes bargains, not gifts.[5] Therefore, when no consideration is shown, as was the case here, the law presumes there to be a resulting trust. This presumption at law places the onus on the transferee (in this case the Respondent) to demonstrate that a gift was intended.[6]
The general rule regarding the rebuttal of this presumption is that the evidence of the transferor’s intention should be contemporaneous – or nearly contemporaneous – with the transaction under scrutiny.[7] The court also cited Renwick Estate v. Stanberry,[8] as an authority for the fact that banking documents establishing joint accounts with right of survivorship are insufficient alone to rebut the presumption.
Legal Analysis
Ultimately, the Court here held that the Respondent was able to show sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of resulting trust, declaring the Respondent as the sole owner of the investment accounts. In doing so, the Court made several findings in an attempt to ascertain the intention of the Deceased. For one, despite the fact that the Deceased actively chose to not create a Will, the Court found that, given the circumstances, it seemed unlikely that they made that decision knowing that the result would be a gift by way of intestate succession to the Applicant.[9] The Court gave substantial weight to the fact that the Applicant and the Deceased were not very close. From this, they inferred that it was the distinct intention of the Deceased to gift the investment accounts to the Respondent, despite the lack of formal Will.
The Court also accepted much of the Respondent’s evidence surrounding the Deceased’s intentions, including notes and recollections made by the financial advisor that helped set up the accounts. The Court held that the Respondent was able to provide a wealth of evidence surrounding the Deceased’s understanding of the right of survivorship of the account. If the Respondent had only adduced evidence of the existence of the bank account with the right of survivorship, that would not have been sufficient to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust. However, since the Respondent was able to show that the Deceased had a clear understanding of the nature of the bank account and right of survivorship, the Court deemed that sufficient for a rebuttal of the presumption.
Final Thoughts
A notable take away from this holding is the fact that it reinforces the idea that Courts will do whatever they can to ascertain a Deceased’s intentions prior to death. What is interesting here, is that the Deceased died without a Will, and actively rejected making one. Despite that, the Court opts to rebut the presumption of resulting trust, foregoing the traditional rules of intestacy. This holding highlights the willingness of the court to follow a deceased person’s wishes, regardless of whether they are explicit or clear.
—
[1] Morden v. Niwranski, 2025 ONSC 3105
[2] Pecore v. Pecore, 2017 SCC 17
[3] Ibid.
[4] Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26
[5] Supra note 1 at para 35
[6] Supra note 2 at para 24
[7] Supra note 1 at para 41
[8] Renwick Estate v. Stanberry, 2023 ONSC 5970
[9] Supra note 1 at para 51
Menu
Written by: Mark Polese
Posted on: December 18, 2025
Categories: Commentary
In Morden v. Niwranski,[1] the Ontario Superior Court was compelled to consider the parameters surrounding the presumption of a resulting trust, and what must be proven in order to rebut that presumption.
Facts
The case revolved around the Estate of Giuseppe Lagana (the “Deceased”), who died intestate (without a formal Will) on January 22, 2021, at the age of 59. The Application was commenced by the Deceased’s only daughter, Amanda Morden (the “Applicant”) against Ingrid Niwranski (the “Respondent”), who had been cohabiting with the Deceased at the time of his death.
The Deceased and the Applicant, despite being father and daughter, were not close. The Deceased met the Respondent in 2018 and began a romantic relationship, which as per the Respondent’s evidence, lasted until his death in 2021. The Deceased had been living in British Columbia when he had first met the Respondent in June 2018 but had moved in with the Respondent 2 months later at her home in Cambridge Ontario. The relationship continued until Lagana’s hospitalization in January 2021 and subsequent death, with both parties referring to each other as husband and wife, considering themselves common law spouses.
Conversely, there was little to no contact between the Deceased and the Applicant from 2018 until his death, and she had received no gifts or financial contributions from him in the 10 years before his death.
At some time in October of 2018, the Deceased decided to sell his home in British Columbia, to move in full time to Ontario with the Respondent. He returned to BC to arrange the sale, and the house was ultimately sold in March of 2019, for $342,000. The proceeds of the sale were deposited into an investment account.
A year later, in May of 2019, the Deceased made the Respondent the beneficiary of his Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) and his Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA). Following that, in September of 2019, the Deceased and the Respondent opened joint investment accounts, set up in both their names with a right of survivorship. The deceased then deposited $206,551.33 into the joint account. Notably, no contributions whatsoever were made by the Respondent to these accounts. Following this, the Respondent had asked the Deceased to prepare a Will, although the Deceased declined to do so. However, during their meeting with a financial advisor, the Deceased indicated that he wished for the Respondent to receive his assets.
Legal Principles of a Resulting Trust
While considering the facts, the court went into an analysis on the legal principles surrounding resulting trusts. The doctrine of resulting trust is central in this case, as it would ultimately govern the determination of beneficial ownership of the joint account.
A resulting trust arises when one person holds legal title to a property, but equity recognizes that the beneficial or “true” owner should revert to another.[2] This typically would involve the property reverting to the person who provided the purchase money. The trust would result back to the original owner because the recipient either gave no value for the property or is found to be in a fiduciary duty.[3]
The Applicant here, is claiming that there is a resulting trust in the joint account that would act to revert the property back the Deceased’s estate rather than remain with the Respondent, who had full ownership of the account by way of survivorship. This was a consequential decision, as the Deceased died without a Will, so if the account would remain with the Deceased’s Estate, the rules of intestacy could operate to entitle the Applicant to a portion of that account.[4]
As Justice Taylor laid out in this case, equity presumes bargains, not gifts.[5] Therefore, when no consideration is shown, as was the case here, the law presumes there to be a resulting trust. This presumption at law places the onus on the transferee (in this case the Respondent) to demonstrate that a gift was intended.[6]
The general rule regarding the rebuttal of this presumption is that the evidence of the transferor’s intention should be contemporaneous – or nearly contemporaneous – with the transaction under scrutiny.[7] The court also cited Renwick Estate v. Stanberry,[8] as an authority for the fact that banking documents establishing joint accounts with right of survivorship are insufficient alone to rebut the presumption.
Legal Analysis
Ultimately, the Court here held that the Respondent was able to show sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of resulting trust, declaring the Respondent as the sole owner of the investment accounts. In doing so, the Court made several findings in an attempt to ascertain the intention of the Deceased. For one, despite the fact that the Deceased actively chose to not create a Will, the Court found that, given the circumstances, it seemed unlikely that they made that decision knowing that the result would be a gift by way of intestate succession to the Applicant.[9] The Court gave substantial weight to the fact that the Applicant and the Deceased were not very close. From this, they inferred that it was the distinct intention of the Deceased to gift the investment accounts to the Respondent, despite the lack of formal Will.
The Court also accepted much of the Respondent’s evidence surrounding the Deceased’s intentions, including notes and recollections made by the financial advisor that helped set up the accounts. The Court held that the Respondent was able to provide a wealth of evidence surrounding the Deceased’s understanding of the right of survivorship of the account. If the Respondent had only adduced evidence of the existence of the bank account with the right of survivorship, that would not have been sufficient to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust. However, since the Respondent was able to show that the Deceased had a clear understanding of the nature of the bank account and right of survivorship, the Court deemed that sufficient for a rebuttal of the presumption.
Final Thoughts
A notable take away from this holding is the fact that it reinforces the idea that Courts will do whatever they can to ascertain a Deceased’s intentions prior to death. What is interesting here, is that the Deceased died without a Will, and actively rejected making one. Despite that, the Court opts to rebut the presumption of resulting trust, foregoing the traditional rules of intestacy. This holding highlights the willingness of the court to follow a deceased person’s wishes, regardless of whether they are explicit or clear.
—
[1] Morden v. Niwranski, 2025 ONSC 3105
[2] Pecore v. Pecore, 2017 SCC 17
[3] Ibid.
[4] Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26
[5] Supra note 1 at para 35
[6] Supra note 2 at para 24
[7] Supra note 1 at para 41
[8] Renwick Estate v. Stanberry, 2023 ONSC 5970
[9] Supra note 1 at para 51
Author
View all posts