The appellant estate representative challenged a trial judgment finding that a deceased had made a $195,000 inter vivos gift to the respondent rather than creating a resulting trust.
The Court of Appeal held that the corroboration requirement in s. 13 of the Evidence Act, and the rebuttal of the presumption of resulting trust, are both governed by the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities, albeit with careful scrutiny of the evidence.
The court upheld the rejection of hearsay evidence from the deceased's accountant as unreliable and found that the deceased's detailed holograph will, which omitted any reference to the transfer while expressly dealing with other loans and assets, independently corroborated the respondent's evidence that the transfer was a gift.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
