Case reference: Anspor Construction Ltd. v. Neuberger Estate, 2016 ONSC 75
This historical case summary discusses the decision identified above. Later decisions and legislative changes may affect how it applies today. Obtain legal advice about your circumstances.
The deceased and S were business partners for decades. The applicants applied for a declaration that two Toronto Maple Leafs season tickets which were in the name of the deceased were held in trust by the deceased’s estate for the partnership. S testified that the tickets were offered to both partners by a business contact in the late 1960s or early 1970s and were put in the deceased’s name because the contact told them that the tickets could not be registered in the partnership’s name.
Held, the application should be allowed.
S’s evidence was credible. The partnership at all times paid for the tickets and wrote off the expense as a business expense. The evidence established the essential elements of both a bare trust and a purchase money resulting trust.
The Law
[29] The parties agree on the essential elements necessary to establish both a bare trust and a purchase money resulting trust.
[30] There are three requirements to establish a bare trust: certainty of intention; certainty of subject matter; and certainty of object: Byers v. Foley (1993), 16 O.R. (3d) 641, [1993] O.J. No. 3140 (Gen. Div.), at para. 13.
[31] Byers concerned the ownership on two field-level seats in Skydome for the Blue Jays. In addressing the determination of certainty of intention, Beaulieu J. stated, in part, at para. 15:
In the absence of formal trust documentation, the court must look at the surrounding circumstances and the evidence as to what the parties intended, as to what was actually agreed and as to how the parties conducted themselves to determine whether there was “certainty of intention”.
[32] A purchase money resulting trust can potentially arise when one person pays for something but title is recorded in the name of a different person. There are three requirements to establish such a trust: first, the trustee must have title to the property; second, the claimant must have supplied the whole or a part of the purchase price at the time the property was being bought; and third, the claimant must prove throughout he acted as purchaser: A.M.K. Investments Ltd. (Trustee of) v. Kraus, [1996] O.J. No. 3215, 13 O.T.C. 254 (Gen. Div.), at para. 12.
[33] Kraus concerned the ownership of a Toronto Raptors footprint licence. In addressing the third requirement, acting throughout as a purchaser, MacPherson J. (as he then was) stated, at para. 14:
The third factor requires a somewhat more detailed analysis. What does “acted throughout as a purchaser” mean? In my view, in the context of the licence which serves as the basis for obtaining season tickets for the games of a professional sports franchise, the answer to this question depends on an analysis not only of the purchase of the licence but also the use that is made of the tickets obtained pursuant to the licence.
[34] The issues of concern on this application are certainty of intention and whether Nuspor “acted throughout as a purchaser”.
*source: Ontario reports
