“Section 14 of the [Family Law] Act affirms the presumption of a resulting trust in determining questions of ownership between spouses in the context of gratuitous property transfers. Where the presumption is invoked, the party resisting the imposition of a resulting trust is required to disprove the presumption that his or her spouse is the beneficial owner of an interest in the disputed property.
In Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10 (CanLII), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269, at paras. 16-19, the Supreme Court confirmed that a traditional resulting trust may arise in the domestic context where, as here, there has been financial contribution to the initial acquisition of a property and a subsequent gratuitous transfer of title to the property. In these circumstances, the actual intention of the transferor is the governing consideration. See also Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17 (CanLII), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 795, at paras. 43-44; Schwartz v. Schwartz, 2012 ONCA 239 (CanLII), 290 O.A.C. 30, at paras. 41-42. Further, the intention of the transferor to make a voluntary and gratuitous transfer is an essential ingredient of a legally valid gift: see McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533 (CanLII), 106 O.R. (3d) 401, at para. 24.”