In Khelawan v. Bonito, 2026 ONSC 2281[1], the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered a dispute between a son and his elderly mother over their respective beneficial interests in a jointly owned home in Scarborough.

Background

The dispute concerned beneficial ownership of a residential property located at 600 Warden Avenue (the “Warden Ave Property”), held in joint tenancy by the Applicant son and the Respondent mother.[2]

The property was acquired following the sale of an earlier family home. The down payment and purchase funds for the earlier property were derived from savings accumulated by the Applicant and his sister, along with a loan from a family friend.[3] Title to that property was placed in the names of the Respondent and the sister who contributed funds to its purchase, because of the Applicant’s poor credit.[4]

After the earlier property was sold, the proceeds were used to purchase the Warden Ave Property. A written agreement at the time provided that the funds for the purchase were supplied by the Applicant and the Respondent and that the net proceeds on any future sale would be paid to them.[5]

Initially, title to the Warden Ave Property was held by the Respondent and another one of her children, not the Applicant.  In 2013, that child was removed from title and replaced by the applicant, resulting in the current joint tenancy between the applicant and respondent.[6]

The Applicant resided in the Warden Ave Property and undertook renovations and maintenance.[7] The property contained two units, and rental income was later generated from one of them.[8] The Respondent also contributed to household and property expenses, although her income was limited and she later developed significant health issues and moved into a nursing home.

Both parties produced extensive financial records, including bank, mortgage, and utility documents. However, the records were incomplete, and there was no comprehensive accounting demonstrating the total contributions made by each party over time.[9]

Following a deterioration in their relationship, the Applicant commenced an application seeking a determination of his financial interest in the Warden Ave Property, claiming that it is held by the Applicant in resulting or constructive trust.[10]

Issue

The core issue before the Court was how to determine beneficial ownership where:

• legal title was held in joint tenancy;
• both parties made meaningful contributions; and
• the evidentiary record of those contributions was incomplete and contested.

Analysis

Resulting Trust

The Court rejected the resulting trust claim. While that doctrine addresses situations where contributions are not reflected on title, the concern did not arise here once the Applicant was added as a joint owner.[11] In those circumstances, there was no basis to reallocate ownership through resulting trust principles.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

The analysis instead turned to unjust enrichment.[12]

The Court accepted that both parties contributed significantly to the acquisition, maintenance, and improvement of the property.[13] At the same time, it was critical of the evidentiary record: although voluminous, it was incomplete and did not allow for a precise reconstruction of who paid what over time.

Each party’s position was found to overreach. The Applicant’s claim to as much as 80–85% of the equity was excessive, while the respondent’s assertion of a 50% entitlement failed to reflect the Applicant’s greater involvement in maintaining and improving the property.[14]

In resolving this, the Court relied on Kerr v. Baranow[15], emphasizing that quantifying interests in unjust enrichment cases is not “an exact science”, and “generally does not call for a minute examination of the give and take of daily life.”[16] Rather, it requires a reasoned assessment of the parties’ contributions and circumstances.[17]

Apportionment

Adopting that approach, the Court fixed the parties’ interests at[18]:

• 65% to the Applicant, and
• 35% to the respondent.

To give effect to this division, the Court ordered that the joint tenancy be severed and converted to a tenancy in common.[19] Neither party could compel the other to sell its portion of the value/equity in the Warden Avenue property, so, if they could not reach a negotiated resolution regarding the issue, the property was to be sold and the proceeds distributed accordingly.[20]

Takeaways

Khelawan highlights several practical realities in property disputes:

• Informality creates risk: Family arrangements often proceed without documentation, making later disputes difficult to resolve with precision.
• Resulting trust has limited reach: Once legal title reflects the parties’ involvement.
• Unjust enrichment is flexible: The doctrine allows courts to respond to the realities of the relationship rather than rigid formulas.

Ultimately, the decision reinforces that in these cases, the court’s task is not to achieve mathematical exactness, but to reach a fair and proportionate result grounded in the evidence as a whole.

—

[1] 2026 ONSC 2281.

[2] Ibid at para 2.

[3] Ibid at para 5-9.

[4] Ibid at para 7.

[5] Ibid at para 11.

[6] Ibid at para 16.

[7] Ibid at para 12.

[8] Ibid at para 18.

[9] Ibid at para 19.

[10] Ibid at para 1.

[11] Ibid at para 26.

[12] Ibid at paras 28-30.

[13] Ibid at para 29.

[14] Ibid at para 30.

[15] 2011 SCC 10.

[16] Ibid at para 31.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid at para 32.

[19] Ibid at para 33.

[20] Ibid at para 34.