Tag Archives: Pecore v Pecore

When a gift really is just a gift

Pecore v. Pecore was a very important case for estate lawyers across Canada because it confirmed that a presumption of a resulting trust arises from gratuitous transfers in certain relationships.  Most often, we see it applied in these sorts of situations: parent transfers property (or puts property in joint tenancy) with adult child, siblings of that child then argue that parent didn’t mean to benefit the child the property was gifted to and that in fact the child holds the property on trust for the parent’s estate.  The child who received the “gift” then has to show that the parent intended it to be an actual gift (not always easy to do).

But what about family members other than adult children?  Pecore makes it clear that minor children aren’t subject to a presumption of resulting trust.  But the case didn’t say anything about other categories of minor relatives.

Read full article