In Morden v. Niwranski, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice examined whether joint investment accounts held by a deceased man and his common law partner were subject to a resulting trust in favour of his estate or whether they passed to the surviving partner by right of survivorship. The Court ruled in favour of the respondent, holding that the presumption of resulting trust had been rebutted.

2. The Facts

Giuseppe Lagana died intestate in January 2021. He held a mutual fund and a GIC in joint ownership with Ingrid Niwranski, his common law partner. These accounts, totalling approximately $206,551.33, were funded with proceeds from the sale of Lagana’s home in British Columbia. His estranged daughter, Amanda Morden, brought an application asserting that the accounts were held in trust for the estate.

Key factual disputes included:

  • Whether Lagana and Niwranski were in a committed relationship at the time of his death.

  • Whether Lagana intended to gift the right of survivorship in the joint accounts.

  • The absence of a will and lack of contact between Lagana and his daughter in the decade preceding his death.

3. The Law

The Court applied the presumption of resulting trust from Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, which requires the transferee (Niwranski) to rebut the presumption that a gratuitous transfer was not intended as a gift.

The applicable legal standards include:

  • The balance of probabilities as the standard of proof to rebut the presumption (F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53).

  • The relevance of banking documentation and relationship evidence in assessing intent.

  • Section 13 of the Ontario Evidence Act, which mandates corroboration for a survivor’s evidence about the intention of a deceased.

4. Analysis

Justice Taylor concluded that the presumption of resulting trust applied to the joint Investment Accounts, but that it had been rebutted on a balance of probabilities. The respondent, Ingrid Niwranski, provided credible evidence—both documentary and testimonial—that Giuseppe Lagana intended to gift her the right of survivorship in the joint accounts.

The Court found that the couple lived together as common law spouses from August 2018 until Lagana’s death in January 2021. The applicant, Amanda Morden, had no meaningful relationship with her father during this period and had not received any financial support or communication from him for over a decade. This estrangement supported the inference that Lagana did not intend for her to benefit from his estate.

Justice Taylor placed significant weight on the testimony of financial advisor Grant Bowering, who confirmed that he explained the implications of joint ownership, including the right of survivorship. Although Bowering could not specifically recall Lagana stating he wished the funds to go to Niwranski, he confirmed that his standard practice was to explain the JWROS (joint with right of survivorship) designation and its estate consequences. The Court also accepted that Lagana expressed his intent clearly at the September 10, 2019 meeting when he opened the joint accounts.

Importantly, the banking documents—such as the Account Agreement and the GIC Signature Card—consistently described the accounts as joint with right of survivorship and were signed by both parties. The respondent’s evidence that she and Lagana reviewed these documents together was unchallenged. Moreover, the designation of Niwranski as the beneficiary of Lagana’s RRSP and TFSA in 2019 further corroborated his intent to transfer wealth to her outside the estate.

The Court distinguished this case from earlier decisions such as Renwick Estate v. Stanberry and Gastle v. Gastle Estate, which emphasized that banking documents alone are insufficient to rebut the presumption of resulting trust. In Morden v. Niwranski, the Court found there was more than mere paperwork—the respondent’s evidence was supported by corroborative testimony from a neutral financial advisor and consistent documentation. Therefore, the Court held that the presumption had been rebutted and the accounts passed to Niwranski by right of survivorship.

5. Lessons Learned

This decision confirms:

  • Joint account designations are not conclusive but can rebut a resulting trust presumption when supported by credible corroborative evidence.

  • Relationship estrangement can be a significant factor in rebutting a resulting trust.

  • Financial advisor testimony and account documentation remain critical in establishing the transferor’s intent.

This case reinforces the practical importance of clear estate planning and the legal consequences of informal arrangements involving significant financial assets.

Contact Bobila Walker Law at 416-847-1859.