In the recent case of Buday v. Buday (Estate), 2025 ONSC 3385, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the complex issue of informal property transfers within a family context. The court ultimately concluded that the deceased had gifted a piece of property to his son despite the absence of formal documentation. This decision was based on a thorough examination of the legal test for gifts, the evidence presented, and the credibility of the witnesses involved.
The Legal Test for Gifts
The court applied the legal principles outlined in McMurtry v. McMurtry, which require three elements for a valid inter vivos gift: (1) an intention to make a gift without consideration, (2) acceptance of the gift by the donee, and (3) a sufficient act of delivery or transfer to complete the transaction . The presumption of resulting trust, as established in Pecore v. Pecore, was also considered, placing the onus on the deceased’s son, Brian Buday, to prove that the property was intended as a gift.
Evidence of Intention, Acceptance, and Delivery
The court found compelling evidence of the deceased’s intention to gift the property to Brian. Testimony revealed that the deceased expressed his intent to gift the property in the late 1980s, a time when he also transferred Buday Auto Sales to his other son, Glen Buday, without formal documentation. The court noted that the deceased’s actions were consistent with his testamentary intentions to divide his assets equally between his sons.
Brian’s acceptance of the gift was demonstrated through his substantial investments in the property. As a skilled contractor, Brian transformed the property from a dilapidated structure into a valuable home, investing significant time and resources over several decades. This transformation, supported by photographic evidence and receipts, underscored his acceptance and reliance on the gift.
The court also considered the delivery aspect, noting that while formal transfer documents were absent, the circumstances surrounding the property supported the conclusion of a gift. The deceased’s lack of involvement in the property post-gift and the absence of any attempts to leverage the property to settle his tax debts further corroborated the gift’s delivery.
Credibility Assessments
The court’s decision heavily relied on the credibility of the witnesses. Justice Wojciechowski found Brian’s testimony to be forthright and consistent, particularly regarding the extensive work and financial contributions he made to the property.
In contrast, Glen’s testimony was deemed less credible due to inconsistencies and a lack of supporting documentation for his claims. The court also noted Glen’s focus on unrelated issues, such as tax debt negotiations, which detracted from the core issue of the property gift.
Implications for Future Cases
This case highlights the potential for informal property transfers to be recognized by the courts, even in the absence of formal documentation. The decision underscores the importance of clear evidence of intention, acceptance, and delivery, as well as the credibility of the parties involved. It serves as a cautionary tale for individuals relying on informal arrangements, emphasizing the need for clear documentation to avoid disputes.
In conclusion, Buday v. Buday (Estate) serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in family property disputes and the importance of thorough legal analysis in determining the true intentions of the parties involved.
Thanks for reading!