Joint Bank Account With a Parent: Resulting Trust in British Columbia

Many parents add an adult child to a bank account for convenience: to pay bills, to help with errands, or to keep things simple if the parent becomes unwell. When the parent dies, a question follows. Does the child keep the balance as the surviving account holder, or does the money belong to the estate and get shared under the will?

The leading decision is Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, from the Supreme Court of Canada. It sets out how courts approach this question, and British Columbia courts apply it. This article explains the approach in plain terms. It is general information, and the outcome in any real dispute depends on the evidence.

This article covers the law of British Columbia.

What the presumption says

Under Pecore, a gratuitous transfer to an adult child is presumed to be held on resulting trust for the parent. Adding the child to a joint account counts as this kind of transfer. In plain words, the starting assumption is that the parent did not give the child the money. The child holds it for the parent.

That starting assumption can be challenged. The survivor must prove that the parent intended to give them the right of survivorship in the balance. If the child cannot show that, the money is treated as belonging to the parent, which means the estate.

How a judge decides what the parent intended

The judge weighs all the evidence on a balance of probabilities to find the parent's actual intention at the time of the transfer. The presumption decides the case only if the evidence is insufficient. So the presumption is a tiebreaker, not a conclusion.

Evidence of how the account was used and controlled is of marginal help and is not determinative alone. The fact that the child wrote cheques or managed the account does not settle the matter.

Adult children and dependency

The presumption of advancement, which treats a transfer as a gift, does not apply to adult children. That is why the starting point favours the parent's estate.

Dependency of an adult child on the parent can be strong evidence to rebut the resulting trust presumption. For example, a child who relied on the parent for support may be able to point to that as a reason the parent wanted them to have the balance.

Types of evidence that may matter

• What the parent said about the account, to the child, to others, or to the bank or a lawyer.
• Any account opening documents or notes made when the child was added.
• Whether the child depended on the parent financially.
• Whether the parent's will and other planning is consistent with giving the child the balance.
• Who contributed the money and why the child was added at all.

Which of these will carry weight depends on the facts. Evidence of use and control alone is not enough.

What to do next

If you are the child on the account, or a beneficiary who suspects the balance belongs in the estate, act early and keep things in order. The personal representative should be told about the account, and the money should not be spent or moved until the position is clear.

• Collect bank statements and account opening documents.
• Write down what you remember the parent saying about the account, and when.
• Note anyone else who heard the parent's wishes.
• Do not withdraw the balance before getting legal advice.
• Speak with a lawyer about how the Pecore approach applies to your facts.

Frequently asked questions