When a person names a specific beneficiary on a registered account, like a RRIF or a TFSA, they generally intend for those funds to pass directly to that individual upon their death, bypassing the estate entirely. However, a controversial line of case law stemming from the 2020 decision Calmusky v. Calmusky left a cloud of uncertainty over these designations by extending the equitable presumption of a resulting trust to them.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has provided welcome clarity in Kunka Estate v. Giasson, 2026 ONSC 1842. The decision draws a hard line between lifetime asset transfers and registered account designations, reassuring testators that their explicit beneficiary selections will be protected.
The Dispute
Ernie had been in a common-law relationship with Marie for over thirty years. When Marie passed away in 2021, Ernie received her TFSA and RRIF by right of survivorship or as her designated beneficiary. Following her death, Ernie developed a close relationship with Angele, whom he came to treat as his spouse. He proposed to her three times, added her to his family insurance coverage, opened a joint account and safety deposit box with her, and, in early 2023, listed her as his spouse on both the TFSA and the RRIF while changing the designated beneficiary on each from Marie’s adult children, Ann-Marie and Michael, to Angele. A few months later, he updated his Will with the assistance of a lawyer, continuing to leave his home and residuary estate to Ann-Marie and Michael, adding Angele as a contingent beneficiary, and making no mention of the registered accounts.
Following Ernie’s death in August 2023, Ann-Marie, as estate trustee, brought an application to have the registered account proceeds paid into the estate. Relying on Calmusky, she argued that under Pecore v. Pecore, a gratuitous transfer to an adult recipient is presumed to be a resulting trust, shifting the onus to Angele to prove that Ernie genuinely intended a gift. Ann-Marie also alleged that Angele had unduly influenced Ernie into changing the designations.
The Ruling: Designations Are Not Inter Vivos Gifts
Justice Horvat rejected the challenge and expressly declined to follow Calmusky, preferring the reasoning in Mak Estate v. Mak, 2021 ONSC 4415 and the binding Court of Appeal authority in Amherst Crane Rentals Ltd. v. Perring (2004) and Alger v. Crumb, 2023 ONCA 209.
The presumption of a resulting trust in Pecore was decided in the context of an inter vivos transfer, where an adult child was added as a joint account holder and given immediate access to funds while the parent was still alive. A RRIF or TFSA designation is categorically different. The designated beneficiary acquires no interest, control, or access to the funds during the account holder’s lifetime, and the account holder retains the sole ability to spend the funds, change the designation, or close the plan at any point. The transfer is triggered solely by death.
The statutory framework reinforces that distinction. Part III of the Succession Law Reform Act permits an account holder to designate a beneficiary on a registered plan and requires the financial institution to pay the funds out to that beneficiary on death. The Court of Appeal in Amherst Crane and Alger has already characterized these designations as testamentary dispositions that transfer directly to the beneficiary, bypassing the estate. Section 72(1)(g) of the SLRA, which draws registered plan proceeds back into the estate only for dependants’ relief, would be meaningless if those proceeds already formed part of the estate at law. On Justice Horvat’s reading, the legislative and appellate framework leaves no room for a general resulting trust presumption over registered account designations.
With the presumption out of the way, the burden remained on Ann-Marie to prove that Ernie intended the funds to fall into the estate. She could not. Ernie’s deliberate decision to re-designate the accounts to Angele, and then to leave them entirely out of a Will that dealt carefully with his other assets, pointed in only one direction.
The Undue Influence Claim
The undue influence claim fared no better. The bar is high, requiring evidence of “outright and overpowering coercion” that overwhelms the testator’s own will. Of the recognized indicators, the only one present was that Ernie had made certain pre-death gifts to Angele, including a $21,300 transfer to help her with credit card debt. That, on its own, was not close to enough.
The rest of the evidence cut the other way. Ann-Marie brought no medical or expert evidence of cognitive decline, and she did not challenge Ernie’s capacity to make the concurrent Will that benefited her. The affidavits from Ernie’s neighbour and a longtime friend amounted to opinion evidence built on a single interaction with the couple. Angele, for her part, refused Ernie’s three marriage proposals and declined to accompany him to his lawyer’s office. As Justice Horvat pointedly observed, if Angele had truly been trying to manipulate Ernie’s estate, marrying him would have been the obvious move.
Practice Takeaways
The doctrinal takeaway is straightforward. Beneficiary designations on registered plans are testamentary dispositions governed by the plan contract and Part III of the SLRA, not lifetime gifts caught by the Pecore presumption. The line of authority through Amherst Crane, Mak Estate and Alger is now reinforced by a Superior Court decision that squarely declines to follow Calmusky.
For litigators, the decision is a useful reality check. A challenge to a beneficiary designation cannot be built on suspicion or family disappointment. Direct evidence of coercion, or a factual foundation that engages more than a stray Gironda factor, will be needed.
For solicitors, the case is a reminder of how much intention can be conveyed by structure. Ernie’s plan worked because it was internally consistent. He used the designation forms for the registered accounts and his Will for his home and residue. Clients who align their designations with their Wills give their estate trustees a much stronger foundation to defend the plan when disappointed beneficiaries come calling.
Thanks for reading!
Osama Saleemi