The Ontario Superior Court was recently made to insert itself into a family dispute revolving around two separate pieces of property in Ramcharran et al v. Ramcharran et al.^[1] In doing so, the Honourable Justice Gilmore had to grapple with a myriad of conflicting pieces of evidence, and interpretation of standing, limitation periods, and equitable trust claims.

Facts

This case revolved around disputes concerning two related applications over two separate properties. The first application (the “Eviction Application”) was brought by Neville Ramcharran (“Neville”) and Hemwantie (“Sandy”) Ramcharran (“Sandy”) to evict Neville’s mother, Dolly Ramcharran (“Dolly”) and his brother Richard Ramcharran (“Richard”) from a condominium on Rosebank Drive (the “Rosebank Property”), which Neville and Sandy owned. The second application (the “Estate Application”) was brought by Richard, acting under a Power of Attorney for Dolly, seeking to recover Rosebank and another property on Bonspiel Drive (the “Bonspiel Property” on behalf of the estate of Dolly’s late husband, Henry Ramcharran (“Henry” or the “Deceased”), on alleged trust grounds. The two applications were ordered to be heard together.

Neville’s Evidence

In August of 2000, Neville and Henry purchased the Rosebank Property as tenants in common and both Neville, Henry, and Dolly began living there. 6 years later in 2006, Henry wanted his name removed from the mortgage and property, so the Rosebank Property and its mortgage were transferred to Neville and Sandy’s names jointly. The consideration for the transfer was the removal of Henry’s obligation on the mortgage, which at that time would have been $88,080.

Neville and Sandy then moved into their own home, the Bonspiel Property, in 2007, which they purchased in their own names, taking out a mortgage of $363,987. Following that, Henry and Dolly continued to reside at the Rosebank Property, with Henry paying the property taxes and maintenance fees totalling roughly $700 per month. In 2017, Henry reduced his monthly payments towards the maintenance of the Rosebank Property to $500. Notably, neither Henry nor Dolly ever paid rent to Neville and Sandy even though Neville and Sandy continued to pay the mortgage for the Rosebank Property.

In 2011, Richard moved into the Rosebank Property with his parents and had lived there ever since. Richard claimed that he had paid his parents rent of $1800 a month until 2022, when Henry passed away. Richard had not paid rent from 2022 to the date of the proceedings.

In May of 2023, Richard, acting as Dolly’s Attorney for Property, registered a Matrimonial Home designation on the Rosebank Property. As such, Neville and Sandy brought the Eviction Application to remove Richard and Dolly from the Rosebank Property, and have the Matrimonial Home designation removed.

Richard’s Evidence

Richard claimed that Neville convinced Henry to put the Rosebank Property in both of their names in 2000, despite Neville not contributing any funds to the purchase of the property. Further, Richard’s evidence alleged that Neville essentially tricked his father into taking himself off the Rosebank Property’s title, and the fact that Henry and Dolly never paid rent to Neville and Sandy was evidence that they were under the impression that they still retained ownership of the Rosebank Property. Furthermore, Richard claimed that Henry sent Neville cheques monthly to pay the mortgage on the Rosebank Property.

Additionally, in 2009, Neville and Sandy refinanced and put an additional mortgage on the Rosebank Property. Richard’s evidence suggested that they used the funds from the refinancing as well as funds withdrawn from a joint bank account held by Neville and Henry to purchase the Bonspiel Property.

In 2021, Richard deposed that Dolly contacted Neville regarding Henry’s wish to reclaim ownership of the Rosebank Property, upon which Neville agreed to transfer title in 2022. This transfer never occurred.

Issues

The Court identified a number of issues that arose from the two applications but only saw fit to give judgment on two key issues. The key issues identified by the Honourable Justice Gilmore of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice were

1. Whether Richard and Dolly had standing to advance the trust claims; and
2. Whether Henry’s Estate would have a Trust Interest in the Rosebank Property or the Bonspiel Property.

Analysis

Issue #1 – Do Richard and dolly have standing to bring their claims?

Richard brought the Estate Application in his capacity as Power of Attorney for Property in relation to his mother. In turn, the claims brought on behalf of Dolly, by Richard, are claims that are made in relation to Henry’s Estate. Notably, Henry died intestate, meaning he did not have a will. Therefore, it would not be possible to advance trust claims on behalf of Henry, as there is no representative of the Estate. Justice Gilmore cited the Ontario Court of Appeal in Beirat v. Khiyal^[2], where it was confirmed that trust claims are personal claims, and a non-titled spouse cannot assert a trust claim against a third party. Therefore, Dolly had no standing to advance her claims.

Furthermore, the Court found that Richard and Dolly’s application additionally faced a limitations issue, subject to the claims for recovery of land being based on the 10-year limitation period in the Real Property Limitations Act ^[3]. As the transactions took place in 2000 and 2006 respectively, they were well outside of the limitation period, given the application was filed in 2023. Richard argued that the harm was not discoverable until 2021, when Henry and Dolly asked to have the Rosebank Property returned to their name. Justice Gilmore rejected this argument as Henry and Dolly would have been aware of the circumstances of the transfer in 2006. If they were in fact “tricked” by Neville into enacting the transfer, they had decades to rectify this issue. As no steps were taken until 2023, this clearly falls outside of the Limitations period set out in the Real Property Limitations Act.

Issue # 2 – Does Henry’s Estate have a Trust Interest In either Property?

Although Dolly and Richard have no standing to make their claims, and even if they did, they would be statute barred as they were outside of the limitations period, Justice Gilmore still saw fit to make a finding in the alternative on whether Henry’s Estate could have any interest in either property.

The trust claims were based on the proposition that Neville essentially tricked Henry into transferring the Rosebank Property to him and Sandy, and that Neville misappropriated funds from the mortgaging of that property to purchase the Bonspiel Property. Furthermore, Richard submitted that even if the transfer was legitimate, there would have arisen a resulting trust with respect to the Rosebank Property, as the presumption in law favours a resulting trust when a transfer is made without consideration between a parent and child.

With respect to the trickery claim, Justice Gilmore doubted much of Richard’s factual claims, and found that there was a significant lack of hard evidence to show that any trickery was in fact enacted. Additionally, when the transfer was made in 2006, the transferring lawyer advised Henry and Dolly to get independent legal advice regarding the transfer, which they elected not to do.

With respect to the resulting trust claim, Justice Gilmore found that, although the presumption of resulting trust did exist, it was rebutted in these circumstances as there is clear consideration given the fact that Neville, in law, assumed Henry’s half of the mortgage, which was over $88,000.

Therefore, Justice Gilmore found that even if Richard and Dolly had standing to bring their claims, those claims would not be successful due to a lack of a solid evidentiary basis.

Final Thoughts

Ramcharran is a cautionary case on the intersection of family dynamics, property title, and equitable remedies. It reinforces that standing and limitation defences are often dispositive in estate‑flavoured property claims. It shows that reliable, contemporaneous documentation will eclipse hearsay narratives. Strategically, this decision stands for the proposition that litigants should prioritize proper estate authority, early vetting of all significant transactions, and rigorous evidentiary preparation. Failing to do so appears to clearly be fatal to what could otherwise be valid claims.

—

[1] Ramcharran et al v. Ramcharran et al 2026 ONSC 390

[2] Beirat v. Khiyal, 2024 ONCA 790

[3] Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15