Canada: Case Commentaries: Pecore And Saylor

Last Updated: July 15 2007

Article by Archie J. Rabinowitz, B.A., L.L.B*

Pecore v. Pecore (2007) SCC 17

Overview of Case

In Pecore1 and it’s companion case, Madsen Estate v. Saylor2, the Supreme Court establishes rules and limitations regarding the treatment of gratuitous transfers of assets from a parent to their child. In particular, the Court addresses two conflicting presumptions which historically operated in such cases. The first, the presumption of resulting trust, which applies to most transfers of property without consideration, presumes that the transferor’s intention is to transfer legal title only to the transferee. This means that when the transferor dies, the transferred assets constitute part of the transferor’s estate, and will be passed on to the beneficiaries of their will. If the recipient wishes to assert ownership of the assets after the transferor’s death, they bear the burden of proving that the transferor intended them to have survivorship rights and a beneficial interest in the property.

The presumption of advancement presumes the opposite, starting from the position that such transfers represent gifts and that full beneficial and legal title passes to the transferee. Historically, this presumption only operated in the case of transfers from a husband to his wife or a father to his child. Where the presumption of advancement operates, the court will start from the position that the assets have been gifted in full, and are not part of the transferor’s estate. The burden of proof will be on the beneficiaries of the transferor’s will to show that the transferor never meant the transfer to commute to a gift on death.

In Pecore, the testator transferred a considerable portion of his assets into a joint bank account which he shared with his daughter. He also gave her power of attorney over his affairs. Evidence showed that the testator’s daughter depended on his financial support. During his lifetime the testator maintained control of the accounts, and paid all taxes and fees on them. His daughter could make withdrawals, but had to notify him beforehand. There was some evidence that the testator opened the account as a means of avoiding probate fees and taxes after his death. In the course of drafting his will, the testator’s lawyer specifically asked about assets such as those held in the joint accounts, and was satisfied that the testator did not intend those items to pass as a result of the will. When the testator died, his will named both his daughter and her husband as beneficiaries of the residue of his estate. The daughter and her husband later divorced, and the husband challenged her failure to include the assets held in the joint account in the contents of the estate. She said that her father meant her to have the contents of the account, while her ex-husband maintained that they should have been included in the estate, in which case he would have received half of their value as a residual beneficiary.

The Court held that the contents of the joint accounts represented an inter-vivos transfer to the daughter which included a right of survivorship. The daughter met the evidentiary burden, successfully rebutting the presumption of resulting trust. The Court considered a number of factors, including statements made by the testator to his lawyer and family prior to his death, his failure to include the accounts in his will, and banking documents granting right of survivorship to his daughter. The Court also considered the daughter’s financial dependence upon the testator. They concluded that the evidence indicated that the testator was concerned about his daughter’s financial well-being, and intended that she keep the contents of the accounts on his death.

Grounds for Decision

Rothstein J., writing for the majority, stated that the presumption of advancement is strictly limited to transfers by a mother or father to a minor child. The presumption of resulting trust operates in all other transfers without consideration. When gratuitous transfers are made from a parent to a grown, independent child, the primary justification for the presumption of advancement, parental obligation to support dependant children, does not apply. The Court asserted that, with people enjoying greater longevity, transfers by parents to an independent child are often made in order for child to help the parents to manage their affairs. It follows that the transfer of assets into a joint account may be motivated, not by the desire to gift money the child, but rather by other, more pragmatic concerns. More surprisingly, the Court also asserted that the presumption of advancement does not apply to adult dependant children, because to hold otherwise would mean that the courts would have to determine in each case whether a child was dependant. However, evidence of an adult child’s dependence may be introduced in order to rebut the presumption of resulting trust.

The Court sought to clarify the law regarding several types of evidence of intention that may be introduced in order to rebut either of the presumptions. Specifically, the court stated that:

  1. Evidence of the transferor’s intention obtained subsequent to the transfer should not automatically be excluded if it is relevant to the intentions of the transferor at the time of the transfer.
  2. Bank Documents, especially where they are clear and detailed, may provide strong evidence of intention.
  3. The existence of a joint account with survivorship rights will not necessarily be sufficient to rebut the presumption of resulting trust - something more may be required in the way of evidence of the transferor’s intention to gift the right of survivorship.
  4. Control and use of the funds during the lifetime of the transferor are of limited utility in determining the transferor’s intention.
  5. Granting a power of attorney may be evidence of an intention to gift where right of survivorship is also granted, especially when there is evidence that the transferor understood the difference between the two. This is because the goal of having one’s child assist in the management of one’s affairs can be accomplished through the granting of a power of attorney alone, rendering the joint accounts unnecessary if the only goal was to have the child help in arranging the parents affairs.

The trial judge erred in applying the presumption of advancement, as the transferee, though financially dependant, was not a minor. The daughter was able to rebut the presumption of resulting trust through the evidence introduced at trial. Evidence showed that the daughter relied on her father’s financial assistance, and the father had expressed a wish to provide for her after his death. Statements made by the transferor to his lawyer indicated that he thought that the accounts would not form part of the estate. These statements were deemed to be important indicators of intention, even though they were made subsequent to the transfer. The father’s efforts to avoid taxes by saying that the transfers were not gifts were held not to be inconsistent with an intention to make a gift to his daughter.

Assessment of Decision

The Pecore decision resolves at least one controversy in the law of trusts in Canada; it is now settled that where assets are transferred without consideration the presumption of resulting trust will operate in all but very limited cases. Only transfers from a parent to a minor child will give rise to a presumption of advancement. The court also clarified the traditional role of these presumptions in determining whether a transfer of beneficial interest has occurred. The Court of Appeal had declared that resort was to be had to such presumptions only after the evidence of intention had been examined and found wanting. This represents a reversal of usual order of events where a presumption is in operation. In Pecore, the Supreme Court righted this topsyturvy analysis, and affirmed that a presumption exists as a starting point, which may be rebutted by evidence.

It is not clear what sort of evidence of intention should be in place in cases where a parent does not want to relinquish control over a joint asset while they are alive, but wishes the child to gain full ownership when they die. The Court has given trial judges great leeway in assessing evidence, which leaves open the question of what evidence might be considered conclusive. In most cases, it will fall to the surviving joint account holder to prove that the transferor intended to gift a beneficial interest in the assets. It is open to the judge to assign varying weights to evidence, and none of the factors to be considered are necessarily determinative of intention. For those seeking legal certainty, these decisions provide little comfort. In Saylor, The Court held that the proven intention to grant survivorship rights to an account would represent a complete inter-vivos gift, but went on to hold that banking documents designating accounts as having survivorship rights were insufficient evidence of intention. Clearly something more is required, and it may be that in order to achieve certainty in such cases, banking institutions and lawyers will need to adjust the wording of joint-account agreements to include a specific reference to the transfer of beneficial interest upon the death of the transferor, or a form of deed or gift may be required.

This element of uncertainty becomes even more apparent when one compares the conclusions reached by the court in Pecore and its sister decision, Saylor3. Abella, J., dissenting in both cases, pointed out that the two fact sets are very similar. In both cases a parent transferred assets into a joint account with a child and gave the same child power of attorney. In both cases the accounts provided for right of survivorship. Abella argues that a presumption of advancement ought to follow any gratuitous transfers from a parent to their child, based on the natural affection that a parent can be supposed to feel for their child. Abella points out, correctly, that a parent’s wish to have their child manage their affairs during their lifetime is not inconsistent with the wish to make a gift on death. However, given that the challengers in many of these cases will also be children of the testator as well, it may be argued that the parental affection argument militates equally for the presumption of resulting trust.

The case also leaves wide open the question of how the courts will decide cases which involve transfers of funds to dependant children. Although Rothstein J. states that the presumption of advancement should not apply to dependant children, since that would mean that judges would be put in the impossible position of determining which children were dependant and which were not, he also asserts that evidence of dependence and the degree of such dependence may be strong factors in establishing an intention to transfer beneficial ownership. It seems that, where evidence of dependence is introduced in such cases, the courts will have to engage in the very determinations that Rothstein J. sought to avoid.

Madsen Estate v. Saylor

Overview of Case

A father made his daughter a joint signatory to his bank accounts, which provided a right of survivorship. He also granted her power of attorney. The father retained control of the accounts and his daughter did not use the funds during his lifetime. On the father’s death, his other children commenced litigation against the daughter when she did not include the accounts in the estate, of which she was sole executrix.

The Court upheld the trial judge’s finding that the transferee had not met her evidentiary burden sufficiently to rebut the presumption of resulting trust. As result, the accounts in dispute formed part of the transferor’s estate upon his death, to be divided equally among the beneficiaries of his will.

Grounds for Decision

Rothstein J., writing for the majority, held that, although the trial judge erred in determining that there was no evidence to support an intention to transfer beneficial interest in the disputed accounts, her conclusion was correct. The Court held that the financial documents, i.e. account agreement, indicating that the father had chosen to include a right of survivorship in the account agreements, along with the transferee’s testimony as to her father’s wishes, constituted evidence which the trial judge ought to have considered. Rather than sending the case back for a retrial, the Court asserted jurisdiction to consider the evidence, but determined that it was not sufficiently persuasive to change the outcome of the case.

The Court found the wording of the banking documents establishing the account agreements to be insufficiently clear, and for this reason accorded them little weight in determining whether the transferor had intended to transfer beneficial ownership. The court accepted the findings of the trial judge that the transferee’s testimony was not candid and at times conflicting. The transferee’s lack of candour, combined with her failure to obey the judges instructions in court and her removal of estate files without authorization, led the court to the conclusion that her testimony could not be relied upon.

The Court concluded that even after having included and reviewed the evidence of the bank documents and the transferee’s testimony there was insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of resulting trust.

Assessment of Decision

In some respects the Saylor decision seems to represent an affirmation of the principles set out in Pecore. Certainly the two cases work together to provide a definitive statement of the law as concerns the presumption of advancement, which is now applicable only to transfers from a parent to a minor child. However, Saylor adds no clues as to what sort of evidence may be sufficient to rebut this presumption. Legal certainty is unlikely to be achieved while courts still enjoy significant discretion in assigning weight to evidence.

The different conclusions reached in Pecore and Saylor turned, at least in part, on the credibility of oral evidence regarding the intentions of the transferor. In Pecore, testimony provided by the transferors lawyer was deemed to be disinterested and credible, whereas the trial judge in Saylor found the testimony of the transferee to be "evasive and conflicting".


* Of Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP. The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Adrienne Silk, Student-at- Law for her assistance in the preparation of this paper.

1 Pecore v. Pecore (2007) SCC 17.

2 Madsen Estate v. Saylor (2007) SCC 18.

3 Summarized below.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
4 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Please join us for a complimentary half-day seminar on the following topics:

  • "When “actively employed” is not enough: Employee bonus update", presented by Matthew Curtis and Chelsea Rasmussen
  • "The top 10 labour arbitration cases of the past year", presented by
18 Nov 2016, Seminar, Vancouver, Canada

Ten days following the election, join us for a discussion with Gary Doer, former Canadian Ambassador to the US, and Gordon Giffin, US Ambassador to Canada under Bill Clinton, to discuss how the new President and Congressional makeup will shape US-Canada relations for years to come.

25 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Dentons hosted a panel discussion about the management of liabilities and risks associated with environmental crises, including potential liabilities for directors and officers and provided insight into risk and liability techniques associated with environmental crisis management.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.