Resulting Trusts and Partition Sales in Ontario Family Property Disputes

What Is a Resulting Trust and How Does It Arise in Ontario?

A resulting trust arises when one person pays for property but title is placed in someone else’s name — and there is no evidence the money was meant as a gift. In Ontario, courts presume that the person who contributed the funds retains a beneficial interest proportional to what they paid, unless the person holding title can prove a gift was intended.

In Loundja v. Tshibitshiabu, 2026 ONSC 3161 (CanLII), the court examined exactly this situation. A father had contributed funds toward the purchase of a property, but his son was placed on title. Because the son paid nothing toward the deposit or closing costs — and because the court found no donative intent on the father’s part — the son was found to hold the property as a resulting trustee. The court fixed the father’s beneficial interest at 85 percent and the mother’s at 15 percent, reflecting the actual source of the funds.

Can a Court Order the Sale of Jointly Owned Property in Ontario?

Yes — under section 2 of the Partition Act, any co-owner of property in Ontario can apply to have the property partitioned or sold, and courts grant these orders routinely where the co-owners cannot agree. The key question is whether sale is appropriate in the circumstances.

Here, title had been transferred to the son specifically to facilitate refinancing — not as a genuine gift. Once the court confirmed the true beneficial ownership through the resulting trust analysis, it ordered the property sold as a tenanted property (if valid leases existed). The net proceeds were to be held in trust pending equalization, with the father entitled to 85 percent. This outcome illustrates that putting someone on title for convenience — without any real intention to give them the property — does not protect that arrangement if a dispute arises later.

What Is Occupation Rent and When Can You Claim It in Ontario?

Occupation rent is compensation one co-owner can claim when the other has had exclusive use of a shared property after separation. It is calculated based on the fair market rental value of the property during the period of exclusive occupation.

In this case, the court accepted expert appraisals to establish the market rent for the matrimonial home. One party had sought credits for utilities and property taxes paid during that period, but the court refused those credits because of a failure to make proper financial disclosure. Occupation rent was ultimately set at $800 per month over 36 months. The lesson here is straightforward: full and transparent disclosure is not optional — it directly affects the credits and offsets a court will allow.

How Does a Court Impute Income for Spousal Support Purposes?

When a spouse fails to disclose income — particularly income from rental properties or investments — a court can impute (assign) an income figure it considers reasonable based on the available evidence. This imputed income is then used to calculate spousal support under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG).

The court in this case found that the mother had not been transparent about rental income and interest earnings. Taking into account the length of the marriage, the disclosure failures, and the ability to pay, the court imputed the mother’s income at $83,712 per year — including $50,000 attributable to rental and interest income. Retroactive lump-sum support was ordered, with ongoing support continuing until the sale of the relevant properties. For anyone navigating spousal support, this decision is a reminder that hiding or underreporting income tends to backfire.

Is Child Support Payable for an Adult Child in Post-Secondary Education?

Yes — in Ontario, child support obligations under the Divorce Act can continue for an adult child who is enrolled in post-secondary education and remains a “child of the marriage” within the meaning of the Act. The paying parent’s income in each relevant year is applied to the Federal Child Support Guidelines tables to determine the table amount.

The court ordered both retroactive and ongoing child support here. Retroactive amounts were to be paid from sale proceeds as a lump sum. Ongoing support was set at the applicable table amount, with termination conditions tied to the child’s enrollment status. Importantly, the court required annual proof of enrollment — a condition that gives the paying parent a mechanism to revisit the obligation if the child’s circumstances change.

Practical Takeaways for Property Co-Owners and Separating Spouses

• Document who pays what. If you contribute funds toward a property but are not on title — or if someone else is added to title for convenience — keep clear records. Courts trace money to determine beneficial ownership, and your paper trail matters.
• Never withhold financial disclosure. Courts penalize non-disclosure directly, whether by imputing income for support purposes or refusing credits for expenses you claim to have paid.
• **Understand that

---

This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.