There has long been a tension between traditional trust law principles and the equitable principles of family law seeking the fair sharing of wealth accumulated over the lifetime of a parties’ relationship. And the recent case of Frank v. Martin, 2025 ONSC 1426 (“Martin“) is a textbook illustration of how trust claims over the family home invariably arise upon a breakdown in a parties’ relationship.
The facts of Martin are unremarkable. The Applicant and Respondent separated 5 years after their retirement. However, they continued to live together in the home they had jointly purchased during their 26-year common law relationship. In her motion, the Applicant sought the listing and sale of the home and interim spousal support while the Respondent in his cross-motion denied the Applicant’s entitlement to any spousal support and sought a resulting trust over the home with a vesting order.
The Disposition of the Home
Whether the presumption of a resulting trust is rebutted is a fact-specific exercise that requires a Court to weigh all the evidence to determine the transferor’s actual intention at the time of the transfer.
Citing Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, the Martin Court noted that applying the Pecore framework of a rebuttable presumption of a resulting trust to domestic relationships requires scrutinising the parties’ mutual efforts, their economic integration, their actual intentions, and their prioritization of the family.
In the circumstances, the Court did not view the Respondent’s higher financial contributions to the home as being a gift. Rather, it was “compelling” that the parties were in a long-term domestic relationship by the time they purchased the home. They continued to manage their financial affairs in the same manner prior to purchasing the home.
Moreover, the parties had collaborated on finding their “forever home” and jointly determined that it would suit their requirements for their future together. The home was purchased as joint tenants and the mortgage and associated bank account was held jointly. At no time during the acquisition of the home, nor in the ensuing 18 years, was an agreement made to provide for an unequal share.
The parties’ conduct therefore “supports a finding that the parties operated under shared, perhaps unspoken, understandings or assumptions about their future together, before and after they purchased the [home].”
The Court declined to grant a resulting trust over the home and ordered that the home be listed for sale on the open market.
The Applicant’s Entitlement to Interim Spousal Support
The Court recognised that it was being asked to consider support on an interim basis, and therefore the Applicant was not required to prove entitlement on the balance of probabilities at this stage. It underscored that an interim support order should be crafted with regard to the needs and abilities of the parties and also permit the Applicant to continue living at the same standard of living she enjoyed prior to separation if the payor’s ability to pay warrants it.
It was undisputed between the parties that they were spouses within the meaning of section 29 of the Family Law Act. In concluding that the Applicant provided sufficient evidence for a prima facie right to spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, ie. an obligation to support beyond any contractual or compensatory basis, the Court noted the lengthy 26-year term of their relationship, the Respondent’s sufficient post-retirement annual income and significant investments, the Applicant’s disadvantage on retirement with a deferral of her pension plans.