“A resulting trust arises when title to property is in one party’s name, but that party, because he or she is a fiduciary or gave no value for the property, is under an obligation to return it to the original title owner” (Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 795 at para 20, cited in Andrade v. Andrade, 2016 ONCA 368 at para 57). Sanfilippo J. in Bradshaw v. Hougassian, 2023 ONSC 3266 sets out the principles as follows,
A resulting trust arises where the property is in one party’s name, but impressed with an obligation to return the property either because the holder is a fiduciary or because the transferee gave no value for the property: Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 795, at para. 20. To determine whether the transfer of property was made for no value, the actual intention of the transferor at the time of the transfer is the governing consideration: Nishi v. Rascal Trucking Ltd., 2013 SCC 33 [2013] 2 S.C.R. 438, at para. 2. Where a gratuitous transfer is made, there is a rebuttable presumption that the transferor intended to create a trust rather than to make a gift, on the principle that “equity presumes bargains and not gifts”: Kerr, at para. 19, citing Pecore, at para. 24. See also, Belokon v. Kyrgyz Republic, 2016 ONCA 981, 136 O.R. (3d) 39 (C.A.), at paras. 54-58. The onus is on the person receiving the transfer to demonstrate that a gift was intended, failing which the transferee holds the property in trust for the transferor: Kerr, at para. 19, citing Pecore, at para. 24.”