What If a Parent Added a Child to the House Title Before Dying in Ontario?
It may belong to the estate rather than to the child. In Kent v. Kent, 2020 ONCA 390, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the Pecore v. Pecore principles apply to a parent's gratuitous transfer of a house into joint names with a capable adult child. A rebuttable presumption arises that the child holds the property on resulting trust for the parent, which means for the estate after death.
To rebut the presumption, the person claiming a gift must prove the parent's contrary intention at the time of the transfer, on a balance of probabilities. Evidence should be contemporaneous, or nearly so, and later evidence is treated with caution if it is self-serving or reflects a change of intention.
Joint property that passed by survivorship is still deemed part of the net estate for dependant support claims. Estate Administration Tax guidance excludes jointly owned assets that pass automatically to the other owner from the estate value. Whether the child truly owns the house or holds it for the estate depends on the facts. A lawyer can review the evidence from the time of the transfer.
Key takeaways
- A parent's gratuitous transfer of a house into joint names with a capable adult child raises a rebuttable presumption of resulting trust.
- The resulting trust means the child holds the property for the parent, and so for the estate after death.
- The person claiming a gift must prove the parent's contrary intention at the time of the transfer, on a balance of probabilities.
- Later evidence is treated with caution if it is self-serving or reflects a change of intention.