Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: CV-21-0202-00
Date: 2025-06-06

Between

Brian Buday
Applicant
R. Bodnar, for the Applicant

-and-

The Estate of Paul Buday, Deceased; Her Majesty The Queen in Right Of Canada as Represented by The Minister of National Revenue; and The Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by The Minister of Finance
Respondents
F. Chaudry, for the Minister of National Revenue
K. Yee and J. Fiore, for the Minister of Finance
Glen Buday, appearing on behalf of himself

Heard: January 13, 2025, at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Justice S.J. Wojciechowski

Decision on Application

Introduction

1This application is brought by the applicant, Brian Buday (“the Applicant”), to determine his interest in a piece of property that is currently in the name of the Applicant’s father, Paul Buday.

2Paul Buday died on August 18, 2021. The Estate of Paul Buday is a respondent to this application. When Paul Buday died, he was the registered title holder of the land legally described as PT MINING LOCATION 5Z SAVIGNY’S SURVEY MACGREGOR AS IN TBR 256432; T/W TBR256432 (PIN 62496-0526) (“the Property”).

3The Applicant resides on the Property and alleges that his father, Paul Buday, gifted him the Property before his death. As a result of the gift, the Applicant made significant improvements to the Property that the Applicant alleges increased the value of the Property by $800,000. The Applicant seeks a recognition of the gift, and the value of the improvements to the Property, and is asking this court to do the following:

(a) make an order vesting the Property in the Applicant;
(b) declare the Property is being held by Paul Buday in trust for the Applicant; and/or
(c) order that a lien be registered on the Property in favour of the Applicant in the amount of $800,000.

4In addition to the Estate of Paul Buday, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Revenue (“Revenue Minister”), and The Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Finance (“Finance Minister”), are also named respondents in this matter. These respondents participated in this application because Paul Buday and his son, Glen Buday, owned and operated a business known as Buday Auto Sales, which the Finance Minister and the Revenue Minister have claimed owes outstanding taxes in the amount of $2,045,246.25 (“the Tax Debt”). The Tax Debt is owed by Paul Buday, Glen Buday, and Buday Auto Sales, and has resulted in liens and executions registered as against the Property.

5The Finance Minister, the Revenue Minister, and Glen Buday participated in the hearing of the application as parties whose interests in the Property could be affected by this decision on the merits.

6Finally, there are private mortgages registered on title to the Property, securing the indebtedness of Paul Buday to the mortgagee, John Boban, which is alleged to be in arrears and still outstanding.

7The position advanced by the Applicant is that he is seeking this court to recognize his interest in the Property. In order to support the Applicant’s position, he has reached agreements with the Revenue Minister, the Finance Minister, and the family of John Boban, including his son, Peter Boban (“the Boban Family”) with respect to monies owed to them by Paul Buday. These settlement agreements will result in the Tax Debt against Paul Buday being paid and resolved, with liens and executions being removed from the Property as well as the mortgages being discharged.

8The alternative outcome to this situation would be one in which the Applicant’s interest in the Property is not recognized, and it is then sold and distributed amongst the Revenue Minister, the Finance Minister, and the Boban Family. If this scenario were to play out, the anticipated sale proceeds of the Property would not be sufficient to satisfy the outstanding Tax Debt of Paul Buday, which are in excess of two million dollars.

9While the equities favour the deal between the Applicant and the Finance Minister, the Revenue Minister, and the Boban Family, no matter what equities exist, the potential settlement existing between the parties is not determinative of whether Paul Buday gifted the Property to the Applicant.

10In any event, the Finance Minister and the Revenue Minister attended the hearing of the application, but took no position on its outcome. Neither John Boban, nor anyone from his family, participated in the application hearing.

Decision on Motion of Nieckarz J.

11In response to a motion brought by the Applicant, Nieckarz J. released a decision dated June 13, 2024 allowing this application to proceed in the absence of a person representing the Estate of Paul Buday.

12While both the Applicant and Glen Buday are named as executors in a holograph will created by Paul Buday, Justice Nieckarz recognized the inherent conflict in the positions of the Applicant and Glen Buday.

13This matter is therefore proceeding without a litigation administrator being appointed on behalf of the Estate of Paul Buday.

Background to the Property

14According to the evidence of the Applicant, the Property was gifted to him in the late 1980’s, but at no time was the legal title in the Property transferred to the Applicant before the death of Paul Buday. This was due to the fact that, at the time the gift was made, there were a number of private mortgages on title, and eventually the title became encumbered by liens and executions filed by the Finance Minister and/or the Revenue Minister.

15This gift was made by Paul Buday after he had relocated from Thunder Bay to Toronto in September 1986, where he resided until his death. After moving to Toronto, Paul Buday would return occasionally to celebrate Thanksgiving or Christmas in Thunder Bay, when he would stay with either the Applicant or Glen Buday. On one of these trips home, before 1990, the evidence of the Applicant is that Paul Buday told him that he was gifting the Property to him because it was a financial burden to Paul Buday. On cross examination, the Applicant stated that this gift was made to him, and expressed by Paul Buday, in October of 1988 or 1989.

16As well, Paul Buday had gifted Buday Auto Sales to Glen Buday, the Applicant’s brother, around the same time. Giving the Applicant the Property was Paul Buday’s way of making things equal as between his sons.

17The Applicant’s evidence is that, from that point on, Paul Buday treated the Property as belonging to the Applicant, and regularly expressed an intent to transfer the Property to the Applicant. In addition, the Property was never used by Paul Buday or Glen Buday following the gift, which was made to the Applicant. Everyone knew and respected the fact that the Property now belonged to the Applicant.

18While Glen Buday stated in his evidence that the Property belonged to his entire family and was used as a recreational property, the Applicant maintains that, by the late 1980s, the Property was not being used as a “family camp” or cottage. Instead, there was a property located at MacCormick Lake which was the family camp.

19The Applicant recalls that the gift of the Property was made when the Applicant was around 24 years old, at a time when Paul Buday and the Applicant’s mother were divorced, and no one except the Applicant was spending any time at the Property.

20Following the gift of the Property, the Applicant performed substantial work to the structure on the Property. The Applicant was a skilled contractor, and numerous pictures filed as evidence show a dramatic difference between the “before” and “after” structure resulting from the renovations and work performed by the Applicant.

21Initially the structure was in a state of disrepair such that it was four walls and a roof which were rotted, with a lot of garbage piled up inside. There was no hydro, plumbing, heat, nor interior walls, and the foundation consisted only of wooden posts dug into the ground.

22In 1989, OSB plywood was added to the side of the structure and some windows were changed. In 1991, an addition was built on to the left side of the structure, and more windows were added as well as a new roof. In 1992, a concrete foundation, a basement and deck were added once the structure was lifted. In 1993, the electrical, plumbing, insulation and framing was added to the basement. In 1994, a double detached garage was added to the Property. A kitchen, bathroom, and bedrooms – with associated plumbing, electrical, insulation, framing, and drywall – were installed to the main floor. Finally, several outbuildings were also added to the Property, and all of the work done over the last 30 years was done by, arranged by, and paid for by the Applicant.

23A number of receipts were produced by the Applicant to reflect some of the work that was done. Work permits issued to the Applicant were filed as evidence. A significant number of receipts were produced which support payments made by the Applicant for various utility and property tax payments, in addition to documents which reflect the Property as being the Applicant’s mailing address. Evidence was finally produced showing the Applicant as participating as president of the Cedar Bay Campers Association for the past thirty years, which is where the Property is located.

24These documents spanned a date range of 2005 to 2023, providing evidence that the Applicant was holding himself out, and third parties understood the Applicant, to be the owner and/or occupant of the Property.

Paul Buday’s Estate

25In the months before Paul Buday died on August 18, 2021, the Applicant’s evidence is that the two of them discussed ways in which to transfer the Property into the Applicant’s name, in order to confirm the gift that Paul Buday gave to the Applicant.

26Because of the writs and executions on the Property, transferring the Property would be a challenging process, and the Applicant states that, in order to sort through the complexities, he brought this application before Paul Buday died, with the knowledge of Paul Buday.

27The Applicant stated in his evidence that, after getting legal advice, an affidavit was prepared for the signature of Paul Buday supporting this application. However, when the Applicant travelled to Toronto to get the document signed, Paul Buday was unwell and never swore the affidavit. A few weeks following this attempt to secure Paul Buday’s evidence, Paul Buday died.

28As such, there are no documents specifically supporting a transfer of the Property between Paul Buday and the Applicant.

29Several testamentary documents, however, do exist.

30Before the Property was allegedly gifted to the Applicant, Paul Buday prepared a Last Will and Testament dated and signed May 2, 1980 (“the 1980 Will”), which provides that, after estate expenses and taxes are paid, what is left over is to be divided equally as between the Applicant and Glen Buday.

31After the death of Paul Buday, his common law wife, Dorothy Wright (“Dianne”), provided the Applicant with two other documents containing an expression from Paul Buday as to the disposition of his property following his death.

32The first handwritten document, dated March 13, 2003 (“the 2003 Holograph”), states the following:

This is my last will and over all previous wills. I leave all my possessions property & and personal belongings to my two sons Glen and Brian who I also assign as exetuors [sic] of my total estate.

33The second is a handwritten document dated February 5, 2021 (the 2021 Holograph”), signed by Paul Buday, stating the following:

things bought by Glen or given to me by Glen go to Glen
things given to me by Brian or bought for me by Brian go to Biran
all watches go to Glen paid for by Glen also jewelry

34Dianne did not participate in the application, although she was served with the application materials and knew that the Applicant was seeking a court order recognizing his interest in the Property. There was no evidence led by the Applicant, nor Glen Buday, which suggested Dianne was asserting any claim with respect to the Property.

35The position of the Applicant in reviewing the testamentary documents is that Paul Buday distributed his assets prior to his death, and that the beneficiaries were to keep anything that they were given. In the Applicant’s case, this includes the Property, which was gifted to him.

36In the case of the Applicant’s brother, Glen Buday was gifted and entitled to keep Buday Auto Sales.

Robert Traer

37The Applicant called one witness during the hearing of this application.

38Robert Traer resides at 1125 Cedar Bay Road and has been living as a neighbour to the Applicant for 16 years. Mr. Traer built his home on family property, which has housed the Traer Family Camp since 1955. Therefore, despite only residing at Cedar Bay for the past 16 years, he frequented the area since he was a child.

39Mr. Traer’s evidence was that, originally, the Property consisted of an old camp which was covered in tar paper. His recollection from childhood was that it was there “forever”, and it was only when the Applicant began doing work on the property that it was transformed to the year-round homestead that currently exists.

40At no time since the late 1980’s does Mr. Traer recall the Property being used as a family cottage or family summer home. Instead, based upon his attendance at the Traer Family Camp, which was eventually transformed into his home, the only person regularly attending at and using the Property was the Applicant.

Glen Buday

41Glen Buday participated in the hearing by filing a document labeled as an affidavit upon which he was cross examined.

42Glen Buday’s main position is that his father, Paul Buday, would not have gifted the Property to the Applicant without proper documentation. Glen Buday maintained that his father was an educated man and was known to say, “if it is not written down and signed it means nothing”.

43Glen Buday maintains that the Property was a family camp purchased by his grandfather in the late 1950s, after which his grandfather and his father built the cottage which the Applicant maintains was there in the late 1980s. From the discussions he had with Paul Buday, Glen Buday maintains that his father gave the Applicant a place to live but did not gift the Property to him.

44Allegedly, the lot where the Property is located could have been subdivided into three equal lots, which could then be divided amongst Paul Buday, Glen Buday and the Applicant. Glen Buday maintains that his father was upset with the fact that the applicant undertook the renovations to the Property by using the entirety of the Property, i.e., all three lots. According to Glen Buday, Paul Buday was angry with the Applicant and threatened to knock down the buildings on the Property because of the manner in which the Applicant was proceeding with the renovations.

45In his cross examination of the Applicant on this point, however, the Applicant stated that at no time had Paul Buday expressed anger or disappointment with the manner in which he improved and remediated the Property. In addition, based upon the Applicant’s understanding of the municipal by-laws relevant to the Property, there was not enough frontage and the Township of Shuniah would not approve of any attempts to subdivide the Property.

46Glen Buday also stated that the Property was an asset used to obtain financing for the purposes of the used car business which Paul Buday gifted to Glen Buday. From time to time, mortgages were registered on the Property in favour of the Boban Family.

47In responding to questions on cross examination, Glen Buday acknowledged that documents related to obtaining financing from the Boban Family after 1989 were signed by Glen Buday as authorized by Paul Buday, although no power of attorney or any documents existed to support the authority extended to Glen Buday by his father. The last mortgage documents signed by Paul Buday and registered against the Property were in May 1989.

48Glen Buday acknowledges the Tax Debt claimed by the CRA through the Revenue Minister and the Finance Minister. He maintains that these claims are against him and Paul Buday arising from the used car business. While the Applicant maintains that he has negotiated a deal with the Revenue Minister and the Finance Minister which would wipe out the Tax Debt, Glen Buday takes issue with this, as he claims not to have been consulted. Since these debts relate to him and his late father, the Applicant has no business negotiating anything with the Revenue Minister nor the Finance Minister. Instead, Glen Buday takes the position that he has an interest in the Property, and that he should be able to use this interest in order to pay down the Tax Debt claimed by the Revenue Minister and the Finance Minister, even though the value of the Property is far less than his indebtedness to the government.

49Glen Buday finally recounts in his evidence a conversation he had with Paul Buday shortly before his death. Glen Buday's father called him and told him that the Applicant had come to see him, asking for him to sign documents which would effectively transfer the Property into the Applicant’s name. Glen Buday maintains that his father told the Applicant to “F-off” and that he was not willing to sign anything.

50On cross examination, Glen Buday did admit that he was part of negotiations with the Revenue Minister and the Finance Minister regarding the Tax Debt. Settlement proposals were discussed and exchanged in 2019, but the offers made were not accepted. While Glen Buday admitted that he knew the terms of the settlement which were discussed five years ago, he was unaware of any similar terms being discussed at the present time with the Applicant.

51When he was taken through the various wills presented as the last wishes of Paul Buday, Glen Buday admitted that they were substantially similar in that they appointed both Glen Buday and the Applicant as trustees and split the estate of Paul Buday equally between them.

52Glen Buday was unable to agree as to exactly what the Applicant had put into the Property for the purposes of the renovations that were completed. However, he did not have any evidence that anyone else had done anything to the Property and admitted that whatever the Applicant did he did it on his own behalf. Glen Buday again maintained in cross examination that his father did not give the Applicant the Property, but only a place to live. And, in addition, the Applicant was told that he could not use the entire Property.

53While Glen Buday maintains that he is one of the estate trustees for his late father's estate, he admitted that at no time had he applied for probate.

54While Glen Buday stated that he had no idea what financial contributions his brother, the Applicant, had made to the Property, Glen Buday admitted that he had not made any financial contribution to the Property.

55With respect to the mortgages in the name of the Boban Family, John Boban was the son of Peter Boban and John Boban was still alive. Glen Buday knew where he lived and admitted that he could have been asked to provide evidence in support of Glen Buday’s position relating to the financing of the used car business. However, he did not do so.

56In fact, when references to the monies borrowed from the Boban Family were put to Glen Buday, Glen Buday admitted that the signatures on the documents created after May 1989 were his, and not those of Paul Buday. He maintained that he had the authority of his father to sign promissory notes and to borrow money from the Boban Family, although conceded that Glen Buday never had a power of attorney for property from his father. Glen Buday admitted that Paul Buday did not sign any documents to secure these monies from the Boban Family.

57The last mortgage to the Property is dated 1989, which is approximately the same time when the Applicant maintains that the Property was gifted to him. In any event, with respect to the mortgages registered to the title of the Property, Glen Buday confirmed that these had all been paid off and that no monies were outstanding to the Boban Family.

58Glen Buday also confirmed that once his father, Paul Buday, moved to Toronto, he did not spend any money with respect to improvements on the Property.

59Finally, Glen Buday confirmed that the used car business, Buday AutoSales, was run by him and his father and ultimately any asset which resulted from that business was Glen Buday’s. Over the past 30 years, Glen Buday received the benefit from working at that business, and the Applicant did not receive anything financially from that business.

The Law

60The Applicant is seeking a determination that his late father gifted him the Property. In that real estate is typically transferred through a formal documentary and public registration system, can a party transfer or gift real property by words or deeds without complying with the standard legal requirements applicable to real estate transactions?

61I accept the expression of the law found in McMurtry v. McMurtry, 2016 ONSC 2853, affirmed by the Court of Appeal in McMurtry v. McMurtry, 2017 ONCA 296, (“McMurtry”), which outlines the principles of gifting property as follows:

[51] John’s position is that his late father completed a valid inter vivos gift, intended to take effect when his father was still alive. The essential elements of such a gift are well-settled: “There must be (1) an intention to make a gift on the part of the donor without consideration or expectation of remuneration, (2) an acceptance of the gift by the donee, and (3) a sufficient act of delivery or transfer of the property to complete the transaction [Footnote omitted]”: see McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533, para 24.

[52] In a circumstance such as this, where a parent is alleged to have gratuitously transferred property to an adult child, the analysis required is as follows:

1. Begin with the presumption that the child holds the property on a resulting trust for the parent: see Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, para 36.

2. The adult child to whom the property was transferred has the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities that the parent’s intentions were to transfer the property as a gift: see Foley v. McIntyre, 2015 ONCA 382, para 26.

3. All of the evidence must be weighed in an effort to determine the actual intention of the parent at the time of the transfer: see Pecore, para 44; and Foley, para 26.

[53] The evidence required to rebut the presumption of resulting trust depends on the facts of each case: Pecore, para 55. Regardless, the common law requires corroborating evidence to rebut the presumption. The corroborating evidence can be direct or circumstantial. It can consist of a single piece of evidence. Or, several pieces of evidence can be considered cumulatively: see Burns Estate v. Mellon, para 29; and Foley, para 29.

[54] Consideration can be given to the transferor parent’s post-transfer conduct, as long as it is relevant to the parent’s intention at the time of the transfer. The reliability of evidence as to post-transfer conduct must be assessed and a determination made as to the weight to be given to that evidence. A trial judge is to guard against such evidence that is self-serving or that tends to reflect a change in intention: Pecore, para 59.

62In considering the evidence adduced during the hearing of this matter, and applying the legal principles from McMurtry, I accept the position of the Applicant that Paul Buday gifted the Property to the Applicant, and a vesting order shall issue.

Intention to Make a Gift Without Consideration or Expectation of Remuneration

63I accept the Applicant’s evidence that Paul Buday gifted him the Property in the mid to late 1980s, which was around the same time that he also invited Glen Buday to participate in Buday Auto Sales, which ultimately became an asset belonging to Glen Buday.

64During the cross examination of the Applicant by Glen Buday, evidence was led that the gift was made in either October of 1988 or 1989. In the affidavit evidence filed in support of this application, the Applicant stated that he believed he was approximately 24 years old at the time of the gift.

65For the purposes of this application, I note that the Applicant’s date of birth is October 27, 1964. Accordingly, I find that the Property was gifted by Paul Buday to the Applicant in October 1989 when the Applicant had been 24 years old for almost a year. This is also in close proximity to the time when Buday Auto Sales was gifted to Glen Buday, according to the evidence of Glen Buday.

66There was no evidence led by Glen Buday that he had to buy into the business of Buday Auto Sales, nor that any asset remaining from the used car business would have formed part of the estate of Paul Buday had the Tax Debt not exceeded its worth.

67While Glen Buday, in his evidence, suggested that his father, Paul Buday, would never transfer property to the Applicant without supporting documentation, there was no evidence led to document the transfer of Buday Auto Sales to Glen Buday.

68As well, Glen Buday’s evidence is that the Property was used as a financing vehicle for Buday Auto Sales through the Boban Family mortgage, with the financing documents supporting advances on the mortgage being signed by Glen Buday and not Paul Buday. No documents were produced by Glen Buday to support his authority to sign on behalf of his father, Paul Buday, in this regard.

69Accordingly, the evidence of Glen Buday supports Paul Buday conducting his affairs at times without formal documentation.

70The 1980 Will provides the intention of Paul Buday to share his remaining assets at death equally between his two sons.

71The 2003 Holograph supports this intention, and the 2021 Holograph does nothing to challenge Paul Buday’s originally instructions.

72In fact, the gifting of the Property and Buday Auto Sales is consistent with the intentions in the 1980 Will by sharing the only assets which Paul Buday accumulated during his lifetime with both the Applicant and Glen Buday.

The Acceptance of the Gift by the Applicant

73The evidence of the Applicant with respect to the efforts he put into the transformation of the Property from a shack to a home is undisputed. Glen Buday admitted that he had no evidence to contradict the position of the Applicant that a great deal of money and labour went into the remediation of the Property in order to create the home where the Applicant now resides.

74Glen Buday did not financially or otherwise contribute to the Property over the past 35 years. Glen Buday was unaware of any financial contributions made by Paul Buday to the Property over the same period of time, i.e., from the time the Property was gifted to the Applicant by Paul Buday.

75The Applicant’s efforts are outlined in his affidavit materials, which attached exhibits including photos of the improvements, receipts detailing the cost of the work performed, permits supporting the construction and in the name of the Applicant, and confirmation of the various utility and service accounts for the Property which list the Applicant as the owner.

76According to the Applicant, the following is true:

From the late 80’s to present I have been the sole occupant of the Property. I have bought, built and paid for everything that is on the Property. Paul [Buday] has never lived on the Property and has had no financial interest of any kind in the Property.

77Based upon the evidence filed, I accept this statement by the Applicant as factually accurate and clearly establishing that, after the Property was gifted to him by Paul Buday, the Applicant’s significant investment in the Property by his own hands and bank account demonstrate his acceptance of the gift.

Sufficient Act of Property Transfer

78The evidence from the Applicant is clear that Paul Buday told him that the Property was gifted to him.

79From that point on, while Paul Buday had used the Property in the past as collateral for financing purposes to support Buday Auto Sales, after the gift was made Paul Buday no longer treated the Property in this manner.

80There is evidence adduced by Glen Buday that, following the gift of the Property to the Applicant, monies were advanced by the Boban Family on the basis of mortgages which were registered – and are still registered – to the Property. However, these advances are supported only by signatures of Glen Buday, and not Paul Buday. It would appear that any use of the mortgage to secure funding for Buday Auto Sales was undertaken by Glen Buday, not Paul Buday.

81The evidence filed in support of the application, and confirmed by Glen Buday, was that after Paul Buday moved to live in Toronto, Ontario on or about September 1986, on the rare occasion when he travelled back to Thunder Bay and visited his family, he might stay a few days with each of his sons. However, at no time did Paul Buday return to Thunder Bay and conduct himself as if he owned the Property.

82The evidence also suggests that Paul Buday did not formally transfer the Property to the Applicant because of the claims registered by the Finance Minister and the Revenue Minister. Effectively, with the Tax Debt affecting the Property, no transfer to the Applicant could be made without burdening the Applicant with the weight of these claims. It makes sense that no formal transfer of the Property was effected during the lifetime of Paul Buday.

83Finally, with the amount of money owed to the Finance Minister and the Revenue Minister, at no point in time did Paul Buday attempt to use the Property in order to either pay off the Tax Debt, or to leverage a deal to address the Tax Debt owed in a manner which reflects the Applicant’s recent resolution efforts. If Paul Buday owned a valuable asset which could have addressed his indebtedness to the governments before his death, a debt existing for many years before he died, why would he not have availed himself of this opportunity?

84Clearly, he declined to do so because Paul Buday did not believe the Property was his after it was gifted to the Applicant.

Submissions on the Credibility of Glen Buday

85The Applicant cited a number of court decisions in which the credibility and intentions of Glen Buday were questioned.

86In Amex Bank of Canada v. Buday, [2001] O.J. No. 198, Brennan J. determined Glen Buday to have defended a proceeding and forced a trial in order to address his own personal issues unrelated to the core issues raised by the litigation.

87In Buday v. Garcia, 2012 CarswellOnt 10883, Deputy Judge Halabisky commented upon the conduct of Glen Buday as being unhelpful, deliberately evasive, and deceitful.

88In Buday v. R., 2019 TCC 128, the Honourable Justice Graham found Glen Buday’s evidence to be lacking in credibility and reliability.

89These findings of previous courts are not determinative of the credibility of Glen Buday in the application, and I do not adopt them when considering the evidence of Glen Buday.

90At the same time, the positions taken by Glen Buday at times did not hold together with his evidence.

91As already noted, while he maintained that his father documented everything, Glen Buday had no explanation and provided no documentation to support Paul Buday’s alleged decision to allow Glen Buday to obtain financing, using the Property as collateral, on the strength of Glen Buday’s signature alone. While Glen Buday maintained that, without proper documentation, Paul Buday would never gift the Property to the Applicant, at the same time it was okay for Paul Buday to orally approve Glen Buday signing his name to documents in order to leverage the Property for money to support Buday Auto Sales.

92In addition, Buday Auto Sales was also transferred by way of a gift to Glen Buday without documentation.

93Glen Buday stated that Paul Buday brushed the Applicant off on his death bed and refused to sign any documents acknowledging that the Property was a gift to the Applicant. In support of this evidence, he stated that Dianne was present when that happened. However, Dianne did not participate in this application, took no interest in disputing the Applicant’s position, and was not asked to provide evidence by Glen Buday to verify this alleged discussion between the Applicant and Paul Buday.

94Throughout the application hearing, Glen Buday was singularly focussed on the ability of the Applicant to make a deal with the Finance Minister and the Revenue Minister without his involvement. Many of his questions during the cross examination of the Applicant suggested that, absent any authority or consent from Glen Buday, the Applicant should never have been provided details of the Tax Debt, and was not entitled to make any deals with respect to monies the Applicant himself did not owe. This clearly distracted Glen Buday from focussing on the real issues in this application – the gift from Paul Buday to the Applicant - and raises questions regarding his motives for making submissions contrary to the interests of the Applicant.

95In contrast, I found the evidence of the Applicant to be forthright and honest, admitting things that he did not know and not appearing to “come up” with explanations just to suit his position. On the core issue of the gift of the Property by Paul Buday, I accept the evidence of the Applicant, including, as already detailed, the extensive work and monies contributed to the Property by the Applicant once the gift was communicated. And, where the evidence of the Applicant conflicts with Glen Buday’s evidence, I accept that of the Applicant, rejecting the position of Glen Buday that Paul Buday was upset with the manner in which construction on the Property occurred, and that Paul Buday told the Applicant to “F-off” when asked to sign an affidavit in support of the Applicant’s position.

Conclusion

96Based upon the evidence filed and presented during the hearing of the Application, I find that Paul Buday gifted the Property to the Applicant in October 1989. As of that date, Paul Buday held the Property in trust for the Applicant, and did not transfer the Property before his death on account of the various encumbrances attached to the Property.

97Accordingly, I order that the Property be vested in the Applicant’s name.

98Should the Applicant or anyone impacted by this decision and who participated in the application wish to make submissions as to any cost consequences resulting from my decision, those shall be made in writing and delivered on or before June 27, 2025, and be restricted to five pages plus attachments. Any positions in response to cost submissions which are made shall be delivered on or before July 20, 2025.