As estate litigators know, when a deceased person dies holding a joint account with another individual, the law presumes that the surviving account holder holds the funds on a resulting trust for the estate. To rebut this presumption, the surviving account holder must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the deceased intended to confer a right of survivorship.
Pecore remains the leading case, having identified five categories of evidence relevant to determining the transferor’s intention:
- Evidence Subsequent to the Transfer;
- Bank Documents;
- Control and Use of Funds in the Account;
- Granting Power of Attorney; and
- Tax Treatment on Joint Accounts.
However, there’s an ‘unofficial’ sixth category, often overlooked, that was expressly acknowledged by Rothstein J., writing for the majority, at paragraph 37 of Pecore:
… I see no reason why courts cannot consider evidence relating to the quality of the relationship between the transferor and transferee in order to determine whether the presumption of a resulting trust has been rebutted.
In Pecore, the trial judge found that the transferor had a particularly close relationship with his daughter, noting she was “clearly the person, other than his wife, that he was closest to and most concerned about.” This relationship evidence supported the finding of donative intent.
While Pecore remains the leading authority, two recent Ontario decisions show how courts weigh relationship evidence differently.
Buffa v. Giacomelli, 2025 ONSC 4024:
In Buffa v. Giacomelli, the dispute centred on joint accounts held by the deceased and her daughter. The deceased’s son argued that the joint accounts ought to be impressed with a resulting trust in favour of the estate.
The court noted a prolonged estrangement between the deceased and her son, lasting from 2019 until her death in 2023. The breakdown began when the son attempted to remove his mother as estate trustee of his father’s estate. In contrast, the daughter had a close and trusting relationship with the deceased.
During her illness, the deceased transferred investment accounts into joint ownership with her daughter, opened a joint bank account, designated her daughter as sole beneficiary of her RRIF and TFSA, and signed notes expressing her intention to gift certain assets.
The court gave significant attention to the evidence of the breakdown in the relationship between the deceased and her son, writing at paragraph 29:
There is a long history of a strained and/or non-existing relationship between [the son] and his mother. [The son] did not trust his mother and he attempted to remove her as estate trustee of his father’s estate, contrary to his father’s wishes. Conversely, there is evidence of a strong, loving, and trusting relationship between [the daughter] and her mother. The gifts made by [the deceased] to [her daughter] are consistent with the type of relationship that she shared with her daughter, but more importantly are reflective of the lack of relationship that she had with [her son].
Ultimately, the court found that the daughter had rebutted the presumption of resulting trust, relying heavily on the quality and deterioration of familial relationships.
In the Estate of Christina Georgiou Psoma, 2025 ONSC 1476:
In contrast, Psoma Estate involved a contested passing of accounts containing several discrete issues, including a fight over the scope of an accounting, life insurance, a roofing agreement, and a joint account. For a further look into this matter, check out our blog.
The joint account at issue was owned by the deceased and her nephew, who was also her estate trustee. The nephew argued that he had a very close relationship with the deceased, and that the account was a gift in recognition of his support and financial assistance.
While the court accepted that the nephew had provided meaningful help, it was not persuaded that this support evidenced donative intent:
While such acts of kindness and support are to be commended, in my view they inherently provide little or no indication or corroboration of any intent that the recipient of such kindness and support may or may not have formed in response.
The court concluded that the nephew held the account on a resulting trust, finding his relationship evidence insufficient to rebut the presumption.
Final Thoughts:
Every joint account case turns on the transferor’s intention at the time of transfer. While Pecore gives us a roadmap, relationship evidence remains a wildcard: sometimes decisive, sometimes dismissed.
As litigators, we shouldn’t assume that a close relationship will carry the day, or that acts of support will be enough. As evidenced in the aforementioned cases, when relationship evidence is compelling and backed by clear facts, it can shift the court’s view on intention.
Thanks for reading!