DATE: 20050411

DOCKET: C41440

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: WENDY JOAN LAUNCHBURY (Petitioner (Appellant in Appeal)) – and – RONALD JAMES LAUNCHBURY (Respondent (Respondent in Appeal))

BEFORE: CATZMAN, ROSENBERG and GOUDGE JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Suzanne L. Hillier For the appellant

Patrick Muise For the respondent

HEARD: April 7, 2005

RELEASED ORALLY: April 7, 2005

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Francine E. Van Melle of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 30, 2001, made at Brampton, Ontario.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] This matter is determined by s. 14 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F. 3. The funds for the purchase of the property came from a joint account. The trial judge found that the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust. Because of the presumption the respondent did not need to rely upon any alleged illegal purpose to establish the resulting trust. The burden was on the appellant to rebut the presumption.

[2] The trial judge found that there was no evidence the respondent intended a gift. While there was evidence that the appellant and the respondent shared an interest for various reasons that the property be placed in the appellant’s name, even the appellant’s evidence does not expressly state that she believed that the property was a gift. The finding that there was no intention by the respondent to give a gift of his share of the property was open to the trial judge.

[3] We note there was no suggestion that any creditor or potential creditor was prejudiced by the property being registered in the appellant’s name. There was also evidence that the decision to put the property in the appellant’s name was for a legitimate purpose, namely, because of the dangerous work that the respondent had done as a police officer in the anti-gang squad.

[4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs fixed in the amount of $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.

Signed: “M.A. Catzman J.A.”

“M. Rosenberg J.A.”

“S.T. Goudge J.A.”