I Just Added Someone to Title to Qualify for a Mortgage: Do They Own My House Now?

Ian Keay

June 5, 2026

A Presumption of Resulting Trust Might Save the Day

A recurring real estate law dispute arises where a person (we'll call them “Chris”) is added to title to real property to assist with mortgage financing but does not contribute to the purchase price, mortgage payments, or ongoing expenses, and later asserts an ownership interest in the property. The dispute is whether Chris’s assumption of the mortgage liability constitutes consideration sufficient to defeat the presumption of resulting trust. In Ontario, the jurisprudence is clear that the mere assumption of mortgage risk arising from co-signing a mortgage and remaining liable thereunder does not, without more, amount to valuable consideration.

 

Accordingly, where an individual is added to title solely to assist the owner in obtaining mortgage financing and remains liable under the mortgage, but does not contribute to the property's acquisition, mortgage payments, maintenance, or carrying costs, that transfer will generally be characterized as gratuitous. In such circumstances, the presumption of resulting trust applies.  Using the example, Chris would be presumed to hold legal title to the real property in trust for the owner, absent evidence demonstrating a contrary intention.

 

The Presumption of Resulting Trust

 

Traditionally, resulting trusts arise in two principal contexts:

 

  1. A gratuitous transfer of property from one person to another; and

 

  1. A contribution by one party toward the acquisition of property held in the name of another.

 

In both circumstances, the transfer is considered gratuitous because the recipient has provided no consideration corresponding to the beneficial interest acquired. The leading Canadian authority is Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, in which the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that a gratuitous transfer gives rise to a presumption of resulting trust unless the evidence establishes that the transferor intended to make a gift.

 

Rebutting the Presumption

 

Where a transfer is found to be gratuitous, the burden rests on the transferee (or the party seeking to uphold beneficial ownership in the transferee) to rebut the presumption of resulting trust by demonstrating that a gift was intended.

 

The applicable standard is proof on a balance of probabilities. The evidence must demonstrate that the Transferor intended to divest themselves of beneficial ownership and confer that interest upon the Transferee when the transfer occurred. Failing such evidence, the presumption operates and the beneficial interest is deemed to remain with the Transferor.

 

The critical inquiry is the Transferor's intention at the time of the transfer. While evidence arising after the transfer may be admissible insofar as it sheds light on that intention, courts approach such evidence with caution to guard against self-serving testimony or evidence reflecting a subsequent change of intention rather than the Transferor's contemporaneous state of mind.

 

Married Spouses and the Presumption of Joint Tenancy

 

Section 14 of Ontario's Family Law Act modifies the application of the presumption of resulting trust between married spouses. While the presumption of resulting trust remains applicable to transfers between spouses, it does not apply where the spouses hold title as joint tenants. In such cases, a presumption arises in favour of joint tenancy, and the party challenging joint ownership bears the burden of rebutting that presumption. To do so, the challenging party must adduce sufficient evidence to establish that the transfer of the joint interest was gratuitous and was not intended as a gift of beneficial ownership. As with resulting trust claims generally, the determinative issue remains the Transferor's intention at the time of the transfer.

 

Absent the contemporaneous documentation of the parties’ intentions, the Ontario courts often infer intention from the circumstances, including the parties' financial arrangements, contributions to the purchase and maintenance of the real property, conduct before and after the transfer and the overall context in which title was structured.

 

Conclusion

 

Legal title does not equate to beneficial ownership all of the time. Ontario courts continue to emphasize that the critical inquiry is whether the transfer was supported by consideration or was intended as a gift. Ultimately, the central questions are whether consideration was provided for the transfer (money) and whether the transferor intended to confer beneficial ownership (intention). Disputes of this nature are rarely resolved by looking at legal title alone. As with most resulting trust claims, the answers will depend on the particular facts and the quality of the evidence available.

BACK

Did my Will Just Revoke My Beneficiary Designations in my RSP and TFSA?

By Ian Keay • September 25, 2026
Clients must consider their beneficiary designations.

Can a Beneficiary Refuse to Leave an Estate Property in Ontario

By Ian Keay • September 21, 2026
What to do when someone just won't leave the house.

I’m an Executor. What do I do First?

By Ian Keay • June 12, 2026
Grief vs. Administrative Work: A Busy First Month

Why Where You Live Matters for Estates Law

By Ian Keay • June 5, 2026
The Importance of Where You Are Domiciled

Do I Need Title Insurance When Buying a Home?

By Ian Keay • May 29, 2026
But my lawyer searches title, right?

Latent Defects, Negligent Misrepresentation and Real Estate Litigation

By Oliver Cooper • February 24, 2026
Caveat Emptor vs. A Well-Drafted Contract

Joint Tenancy vs. Tenants in Common

By Ian Keay • February 11, 2026
How to navigate co-ownership of real property.

Gifting Farm Property: A Tax-Driven Strategy

By Ian Keay • February 10, 2026
When you want to keep the farm in the family.

Could an Inheritance Disqualify your Child’s ODSP Eligibility?

By Ian Keay • February 3, 2026
In Ontario, ODSP recipients are generally not permitted to hold more than $40,000 in non-exempt assets without risking their benefit qualification. As a result, receiving an inheritance—especially an unexpected one—can be stressful and confusing. Many recipients are left wondering whether the inheritance will reduce or interrupt their ODSP support. When families don’t know whether their intended-beneficiary collects ODSP or not, it can lead to the preparation of a Will that includes no planning to structure the gift properly-to protect the recipient's qualification for ODSP benefits. When that happens, the recipient (or, if they are incapable, their legally appointed representative) must consider whether there are ways to protect the intended beneficiary’s qualification. The ODSP $40,000 asset limit applies to non-exempt property and funds. However, certain exempt assets are not counted when determining ODSP eligibility. If an inheritance is not planned properly, a recipient who wants to remain eligible can consider whether enough of the inheritance can be transferred into exempt assets. This would mean that their non-exempt total stays within the allowable $40,000 limit. Examples of exempt assets under ODSP include: An interest in a principal residence One motor vehicle Funds held in a Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) A trust created by the ODSP recipient using inherited funds, provided the trust capital does not exceed $100,000 A pre-paid funeral Household goods and furnishings required for the reasonable enjoyment of a home There are a number of planning tools available to skillful Wills practitioners to assist in protecting a beneficiary’s entitlement to ODSP - a prime example is a Henson Trust. If you are preparing your Will and you have a family member collecting ODSP benefits, getting good advice early is crucial. - Ian Keay

Draft Wills, Digital Files, and When Validation Can’t Help

By Ian Keay • February 3, 2026
Ontario’s Will validation rules are meant to prevent unfair outcomes where a person clearly intended a document to be their final Will, but the signing formalities weren’t perfect. However, there are limits — especially when the only “Will” is an unsigned draft that exists as a digital document only. A recent Ontario case, Madhani v. Fast, 2025 ONSC 4100, is a reminder that an unsigned electronic draft generally cannot be validated under Ontario law. The common scenario: lawyer takes instructions to draft a Will for Client lawyer prepares draft Will a signing appointment is booked the client dies before the Will is signed Will was not printed out - it exists in digital form only In Madhani , the draft Will was never printed and never executed. The draft existed only as an electronic file. Can the Court “validate” the draft anyway? Ontario’s validating provision is found at Section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act (“ SLRA ”). Section 21.1 allows the Court to validate a document that does not comply with execution formalities provided it reflects the deceased’s testamentary intentions. In Madhani , the Court held Section 21.1 cannot be used to validate a Will that exists only in electronic form. Why not? Another piece of Ontario legislation, the Electronic Commerce Act, 2000 (“ ECA ”) explicitly limits the Court’s validating power. Section 31 of the ECA excludes Wills from electronic recognition. Section 21.1(2) of the SLRA explicitly makes Will validation subject to the exclusion under Section 31 of the ECA. In short: Ontario law still requires a physical testamentary document for validation to even be possible. Testamentary intention still matters Nevermind the “electronic draft” problem, which is significant on its own. There must also be evidence before the Court that supports that the digital draft was a valid reflection of the deceased Client’s fixed and final intention. Did the Client read the final draft? Did the Client sign the final draft? What evidence can be produced that shows what was drafted is an accurate reflection of the Client's "fixed and final intention"? Ontario courts often use the “deliberate, fixed and final intention” test drawn from George v. Daily, 1997 CanLII 17825 (MB CA). In Madhani , the draft Will was to be reviewed and confirmed at the signing meeting — only the signing meeting never happened – which means no evidence could be produced to decide whether the draft Will reflected the deceased Client’s fixed and final intention. The Court was not reasonably satisfied in Madhani . How this differs from other validation cases Ontario courts have validated Wills with execution defects where the document was physical and clearly authentic, for example: Cruz v. Public Guardian and Trustee , 2023 ONSC 3629 Vojska v. Ostrowski , 2023 ONSC 3894 But those cases involved paper documents that were physically present and clearly connected to the deceased’s fixed and final intention. Practical takeaways The Madhani case is a caution for both lawyers and families: print important drafts (especially when a signing meeting is imminent) try to obtain direct confirmation from the client (not only through intermediaries) digital drafts on devices may not be legally usable as Wills in Ontario Bottom line Madhani confirms that Ontario’s Will validation paradigm under Section 21.1 SLRA is helpful — but it is not a workaround for electronic-only drafts. Until legislation changes, a Will must exist in physical form before Ontario’s courts can consider validating the unsigned draft under SLRA s. 21.1.