Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-15-84165

Date: August 1, 2025

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

Dipakshi Verma – Applicant

– and –

Jaswinder Singh Bhooi (also known as Jazz Bhooi) and Rajinder Bhooi (also known as Rajinder Rajan) – Respondents

Counsel:

Marcy Segal, for the applicant

A. Rick Toor, for the respondent Rajinder Bhooi

Heard: November 19 to 22, 2024; written submissions dated January 20, 2025, February 7, 2025, and February 14, 2025

Reasons for Judgment

The Honourable Justice Ranjan K. Agarwal

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] The respondent Jaswinder Singh Bhooi passed away in April 2021, in the middle of this case. In the wake of his death, his two ex-wives, the applicant Dipakshi Verma and the respondent Rajinder Bhooi, are left litigating over his alleged interest in an investment property. Dipakshi also claims for spousal support to be paid from Jaswinder's life insurance—Rajinder concedes this claim.

[2] Dipakshi alleges that Jaswinder told her that the commercial property was theirs. He promised to add her name to the title, he built a one-bedroom apartment for them on the property, and she worked with him at his auto body shop at the property. He eventually gave her a trust agreement, which stated that they each held a 50 percent interest in the numbered company that owned the property. To succeed in her claim, Dipakshi must first prove that Jaswinder had an ownership interest in the property. She argues that Rajinder was holding the property in trust for Jaswinder. If she proves Jaswinder's ownership interest, then she must also prove that she has a beneficial interest in the property. She claims a constructive trust on the basis that she made material contributions to the property. Alternatively, she argues she has a constructive trust over the property because Jaswinder fraudulently conveyed assets to Rajinder.

[3] Rajinder responds that Jaswinder has never had any ownership interest in the property. She is and has always been the sole owner. Jaswinder's name is nowhere to be found on any of the related documents, and there's no money trail linking him to the property. Her father-in-law financially helped her buy the property. Though Jaswinder assisted Rajinder in setting up the corporate structure, renovating the property, managing it, and maintaining it, even he denied having an ownership interest.

[4] For the reasons discussed below, I agree with Rajinder that Jaswinder had no right to the property. He misled Dipakshi. He lied to her, and the trust agreement was a sham. Even if Jaswinder had an ownership interest, Dipakshi has failed to prove her claim for unjust enrichment. Finally, there's no merit to Dipakshi's claim that Jaswinder fraudulently conveyed his assets to Rajinder. As a result, there's no basis for Dipakshi's claim for a constructive trust.

[5] Thus, I endorse an order (a) dismissing Dipakshi's claim for equalization of net family properties; and (b) that Dipakshi is entitled to retroactive spousal support of $12,133.33.

II. OVERVIEW

[6] The trial evidence disclosed two and sometimes three versions of the same events. To provide context for my decision, I first summarize my findings of fact.

[7] Jaswinder and Rajinder married in January 1988. Their daughter, Nimerta Bhooi, was born in 1993. The family lived with Jaswinder's parents, Balwant Bhooi and Maninder Bhooi, on Chieftan Circle, Mississauga. Balwant and Maninder own the Chieftan Circle house.

[8] In 1997, Jaswinder and Dipakshi started an extra-marital affair. Jaswinder and Rajinder separated around the same time, but continued living together at Chieftan Circle. They finally divorced in August 2002.

[9] In December 2002, Jaswinder and Dipakshi got married. They rented a condo in Mississauga.

[10] In March 2003, Maninder had a stroke. Jaswinder helped care for Maninder. He was often not at home with Dipakshi.

[11] Balwant didn't know that Jaswinder and Rajinder were divorced, or that Jaswinder had remarried. In August 2003, Dipakshi went to the Chieftan Circle house looking for Jaswinder. She spoke to Balwant, and told him that she was Jaswinder's wife. Balwant was shocked and upset. Jaswinder later confronted Dipakshi about her actions, which led to a breakdown in their relationship. Dipakshi left for India, and stayed there until August 2007.

[12] While Dipakshi was in India, she and Jaswinder reconciled. But Jaswinder led Rajinder and his parents to believe that he and Dipakshi were separated or divorced.

[13] Balwant and Maninder maintained a loving and caring relationship with Rajinder. For example, Balwant financially supported Rajinder's post-secondary nursing education. Rajinder was one of Maninder's caregivers after her stroke. Rajinder continues to live at Chieftan Circle.

[14] In 2005, Rajinder bought a commercial investment property at #5, 1060 Britannia Road, Mississauga, through 1662054 Ontario Inc. The property is an industrial condominium, with an office and industrial space on the main floor and offices on the second floor. The main floor office has a kitchenette, and 1 ½ bathrooms. The industrial space has always been used for auto-related businesses.

[15] Balwant helped Rajinder financially with the down payment but he's never claimed that his financial contribution entitles him an interest. Rajinder is and has always been the sole officer, director, and shareholder of 166. Jaswinder was, by his own admission, a poor businessperson. Around this time, he was facing financial and legal troubles. Balwant offered to help Rajinder buy the Britannia Road property so, in part, Jaswinder could operate an auto business from the space.

[16] Around the time the property purchase was being finalized, Jaswinder told Dipakshi and her father, while Dipakshi was in India, that he had bought the Britannia Road property for him and Dipakshi through a numbered company. That was a lie.

[17] In June 2007, Jaswinder was convicted of fraud, and given a conditional sentence. He didn't tell Rajinder or Dipakshi about the conviction. Dipakshi knew that Rajinder and Nimerta lived with Jaswinder's parents, and that Rajinder provided support to them. Jaswinder used this information to hide his sentence, which included a curfew, from Dipakshi. In August 2008, Jaswinder sent Dipakshi back to India.

[18] Around this time, Jaswinder and Rajinder resumed sexual relations, though only briefly.

[19] In 2010, while Dipakshi was in India, Jaswinder was again convicted of fraud. This time, he was sentenced to jail, so there was no hiding his sentence.

[20] In September 2012, after Jaswinder had gotten out of jail, Dipakshi returned to Canada. Jaswinder continued to lead Dipakshi to believe that he owned the Britannia Road property, and she had a beneficial interest in it. He could maintain this ruse because he operated an auto detailing business from the property in 2007 and 2008, and then managed the tenants and maintenance for Rajinder. He even signed cheques drawn on 166's bank account. But he didn't have signing authority—he forged Rajinder's signature.

[21] In November 2012, Jaswinder gave Dipakshi a Trust Agreement that showed that she had a 50 percent interest in 166. He also gave her a copy of his Will, which left half his estate to her. The Trust Agreement was a sham: Jaswinder didn't own 166, so there was no basis for the assertion that Dipakshi had a 50 percent interest in the property. The Trust Agreement wasn't part of the Will, and Peter Verbeek, the lawyer who witnessed Jaswinder's signature, implied that Jaswinder prepared the document.

[22] A week later, Jaswinder revoked the Will, and signed a new Will that left his estate to Rajinder and Nimerta.

[23] Jaswinder and Dipakshi continued their relationship as before. They lived in rental apartments in Toronto, and Jaswinder often spent nights away. He sent Dipakshi to India for long visits, which helped him maintain his dual life. In July 2015, their landlord started eviction proceedings, much to Dipakshi's surprise.

[24] Dipakshi and Jaswinder separated that month, and she started this proceeding. In his answer, Jaswinder asserted that he and Dipakshi separated in 2003, and that he had no interest in the Britannia Road property.

[25] In October 2015, Jaswinder and Dipakshi reconciled. Their pattern started again: Dipakshi would go to India for long visits and, when she returned to Canada, she and Jaswinder would live in rental apartments but Jaswinder was often absent. Given Jaswinder's defence to the family law case, Dipakshi insisted that Jaswinder put her name on title to settle the case. Jaswinder didn't do so, which led to the irretrievable breakdown of their relationship.

[26] That same year, Rajinder started Kloog Contracting Inc., a home renovation business. Jaswinder ran or managed the business but he didn't have an ownership interest. The company never made any money. Rajinder was satisfied that Jaswinder earned some cash income from the jobs he organized through the company.

[27] In October 2019, at a focused hearing, Justice Emery made the following findings:

(a) Jaswinder and Dipakshi separated on May 31, 2015;

(b) Jaswinder earned $44,000 from 2012 to 2017, and $56,000 in 2018 and 2019;

(c) Dipakshi earned $22,000 from 2012 to 2017, and $28,000 in 2018 and 2019; and

(d) Jaswinder gave $98,594 to Dipakshi between 2004 and 2017.

See Verma v. Bhooi, 2019 ONSC 6251, at para 174.

[28] Jaswinder died in April 2021.

[29] As of May 31, 2015, the Britannia Road property had a value of $410,000. Jaswinder had a life insurance policy with a death benefit of $130,000. The estate has no other known assets.

[30] As I discuss below, I conclude that Jaswinder had no interest in 166 or the Britannia Road property. Rajinder was not holding these assets, in whole or in part, in trust for Jaswinder. There's also no evidence that Jaswinder conveyed assets to Rajinder to avoid his creditors. As a result, any representations that Jaswinder made to Dipakshi about her interest in the property were lies. But even if Jaswinder had an ownership interest, Dipakshi didn't contribute to the property such that she was deprived or Jaswinder was enriched, so there's no merit to her constructive trust claim.

[31] Based on Rajinder's concessions, Dipakshi is entitled to spousal support at the mid-range from June 1, 2015, to April 22, 2021, which totals $31,364.22. Justice Emery found that Jaswinder provided $19,230.89 in direct and indirect support from 2015 to 2017. As a result, Jaswinder's estate is liable for lump sum spousal support in the amount of $12,133.33.

III. BACKGROUND

A. Litigation History

[32] Dipakshi started this proceeding against Jaswinder and Rajinder on August 17, 2015. She sought orders for spousal support and equalization of her and Jaswinder's net family property. She also sought an order that Jaswinder fraudulently conveyed the Britannia Road property to Rajinder, and that she has a "spousal beneficial interest" in the asset.

[33] In response, Jaswinder pleaded that he and Dipakshi separated in 2003, and he never owned the Britannia Road property. He also pleaded that he signed the Trust Agreement to "keep her happy and protect my family from her" but he never owned 166's shares. He also acknowledges changing his Will after giving a copy to Dipakshi.

[34] For her part, Rajinder simply denied that she was a proper party to the case.

[35] Because Jaswinder and Dipakshi reconciled on-and-off after she started the case, the litigation didn't get going until June 2017. At the time, Dipakshi and Jaswinder were represented by lawyers. In the hopes of an early resolution, the parties agreed to a focused hearing on the issues of Dipakshi and Jaswinder's separation date, their respective incomes, and how much financial support Jaswinder provided Dipakshi.

[36] Unfortunately, both parties dismissed their respective lawyers. When the focused hearing finally started in October 2018, Dipakshi was self-represented and Jaswinder had a new lawyer. Rajinder remained self-represented. The hearing was heard over four days between October 2018 and April 2019.

[37] In October 2019, Justice Emery released his decision on the focused hearing. The findings are summarized above.

[38] At some point Dipakshi hired a new lawyer. In April 2021, Justice Fowler-Byrne granted Dipakshi leave to amend her application to plead, in the alternative, that Rajinder was holding the shares of 166 and Kloog in trust for Jaswinder. Justice Fowler-Byrne dismissed Jaswinder's argument that the claims were limitation-barred or improperly pleaded.

[39] Jaswinder died shortly after that motion. Justice Petersen, in September 2021, made an order that Rajinder, in her capacity as Jaswinder's estate trustee, could continue the proceeding. This motion was made by Dipakshi—Rajinder isn't asserting any claims, so really this was an order that Rajinder must continue defending the case on behalf of Jaswinder's estate.

[40] In July 2022, Justice McSweeney ordered that the trial of this case proceed as a summary trial. The application was called for trial in January 2024. By this time, Dipakshi was again self-represented. Dipakshi successfully requested an adjournment, in part, to retain a handwriting expert.

[41] Dipakshi has since retained another lawyer. The trial finally proceeded in November 2024. In the trial record, Dipakshi included an amended amended application, dated March 5, 2024. She has withdrawn her claim for a declaration of fraudulent conveyance, and added claims for an unequal division of family property and tort damages. I don't see any order granting Dipakshi leave to amend her application. At trial, she relied on this pleading but narrowed her claim to equalization and spousal support. But she continued to rely on the claim for fraudulent conveyance.

B. The Trial Evidence

[42] For trial, the parties adduced evidence by affidavit. The witnesses were cross-examined. Each party made written arguments.

[43] Dipakshi introduced the two affidavits she filed for the focused hearing (dated August 16, 2017, and September 25, 2017). She also introduced her trial affidavits (dated June 30, 2023, and October 30, 2023), which duplicated some of the evidence in her focused hearing affidavits. Also, Dipakshi relied on a litigation expert's report.

[44] Rajinder introduced the affidavit she filed for the focused hearing (dated September 7, 2017). She also introduced two affidavits containing financial disclosure (dated July 8, 2021, and November 15, 2021). These documents are over 1200 pages. I didn't rely on these documents unless a witness deposed to them. Finally, Rajinder introduced her trial affidavit (dated August 15, 2023) and trial affidavits from Nimerta (dated August 23, 2023), Balwant (dated August 23, 2023), and Mr. Verbeek (dated August 14, 2023).

[45] The parties agreed on the admission of Jaswinder's two affidavits for the focused hearing (dated September 8, 2017, and October 3, 2017). They also agreed that the transcripts of Jaswinder's evidence from the focused hearing is admissible. Though the transcripts are hearsay evidence, Jaswinder is unavailable; the parties are the same; the material issues are substantially the same; and he was cross-examined under oath. See R v. Backhouse, at para 184.

C. Law

[46] When spouses are separated and there's no reasonable prospect that they'll resume cohabitation, the spouse whose net family property is the lesser of the two net family properties is entitled to one-half the difference between them. See Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3, s 5(1). Before property can be equalized under the FLA, a court must first determine the "net family property" of each spouse. This exercise requires first that all questions of title be settled. See D'Angelo v. Barrett, 2016 ONCA 605, at para 19.

[47] A person may apply to the court for the determination of a question between that person and their spouse as to the ownership or right to possession of particular property, other than a question arising out of an equalization of net family properties, and the court may (a) declare the ownership or right to possession; and (b) order that the property be partitioned or sold to realize the interests in it. See FLA, s 10(1); Alajajian v. Alajajian, 2019 ONSC 4678, at para 108, aff'd 2021 ONCA 602.

D. Preliminary Issue: Handwriting Expert

[48] Dipakshi adduced expert evidence from Kenneth Davies, a handwriting expert. As it turns out, Mr. Davies's evidence was irrelevant because Rajinder has conceded his opinions.

[49] First, some of the affidavits of Balwant, Rajinder, and Mr. Verbeek appear to be signed by the same person. In cross-examination, Rajinder's lawyer advised that he signed all three affidavits. He submits that it's permissible to do so under the Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act, RSO 1990, c C.17, s 9.

[50] Second, there are several versions of Rajinder's signature. Rajinder doesn't dispute that Jaswinder signed documents related to the Britannia Road property on her behalf, including cheques.

IV. ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION

[51] This case presents four issues:

(a) was Rajinder holding the shares of 166 or the Britannia Road property in trust for Jaswinder?

(b) was Jaswinder unjustly enriched by Dipakshi's contributions to the Britannia Road property?

(c) did Jaswinder fraudulently convey property to Rajinder?

(d) is Dipakshi entitled to spousal support?

A. Issue #1: Was Rajinder Holding the Shares of 166 or the Britannia Road Property in Trust for Jaswinder?

[52] On paper, Rajinder owns and has always owned the Britannia Road property:

• Rajinder is and has always been the sole officer, director, and shareholder of 166
• 166 is and has always been the registered owner of the Britannia Road property.

[53] In Dipakshi's application, she requests an order that Rajinder is holding "the shares of 1662054 Ontario Inc. in trust for the Respondent Jaswinder and that he was and now his Estate is the beneficial owner of the said shares…." Dipakshi argues that there was an express trust between Jaswinder and Rajinder based on his oral representations, her contributions to the property, and the Trust Agreement he showed her.

1. Legal Framework

[54] The creation of a valid trust requires "three essential characteristics" or three certainties:

(a) certainty of intention to create a trust;

(b) certainty of subject matter; and

(c) certainty of objects.

See Corvello v. Colucci, 2022 ONCA 159, at para 7.

[55] That said, a person doesn't have standing to advance a trust claim on behalf of a former spouse for equalization purposes. See Karatzoglou v. Commisso, 2023 ONCA 738, at para 24. The facts of Karatzoglou are similar to the facts here. In that case, the respondent added the applicant's mother as a party, alleging that she held two properties in trust for the applicant. The respondent sought to add the value of these two properties to the applicant's net family property and thus make them subject to equalization. The Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment motion judge's decision that the respondent, who is the non-titled spouse, can't assert a trust claim against the applicant's mother, the third party, on behalf of the applicant for equalization purposes.

[56] So too here.

[57] Dipakshi, the non-titled spouse, can't assert a trust claim against Rajinder, a third party, on behalf of her former spouse, Jaswinder, for equalization purposes. It doesn't matter that Jaswinder is dead. Dipakshi is asserting the claim on behalf of his estate but she lacks standing to do so—she's not the estate trustee.

[58] Rajinder didn't move for summary judgment despite Karatzoglou. This issue wasn't raised in either party's closing argument. Though this law is sufficient to dispose of Dipakshi's equalization claim, I consider her other arguments to give the parties some finality and certainty.

[59] As there's no written trust agreement between Jaswinder and Rajinder, I 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". See Corvello, at para 10.

[60] There's no dispute about the subject-matter of the alleged trust: the shares of 166 and the Britannia Road property. But the evidence about the object of the alleged trust and Jaswinder's and Rajinder's intentions are far more unclear.

[61] I find, on the totality of the evidence, that Dipakshi has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Rajinder was holding 166's shares or the Britannia Road property in trust for Jaswinder.

2. Jaswinder's Actions

[62] Dipakshi deposed that, in March 2005, Jaswinder told her that he had "saved up enough money to buy a commercial office building, 1060 Britannia Road East, Unit 5, Mississauga, ON for us."

[63] In November 2012, Jaswinder gave Dipakshi a copy of a Trust Agreement:

I, Jasvinder Singh Bhooi, confirm that any of the issued and outstanding common shares in 1662054 Ontario Inc. and Kloog Contracting, a division of 1662054 Ontario Inc. are held for the following persons:

50% for Jaswinder Singh Bhooi

50% for Dipakshi Verma

[64] He also gave Dipakshi a copy of his Will, dated November 22, 2012, that divided his estate equally between Nimerta and Dipakshi.

[65] Dipakshi deposed that, in February 2015, Jaswinder "convinced me that his business located at [Britannia Road] was 50% mine and that helping him would help build our business." In support of her contention, she produced two cheques drawn on 166's bank account, payable to their residential landlord for rent (which we now know he forged).

[66] She also says that her actions show that they owned the property together:

• Jaswinder showed Dipakshi the "progress of the [renovation] work" for her input on "different things"
• Dipakshi helped "maintain" the Britannia Road property and helped Jaswinder with the auto body business ("billing, ordering parts, calling clients to pick up their cars and cleaning up")
• she "cleaned and assisted" with the Britannia Road property

[67] According to Dipakshi, she didn't learn "the truth" until after Jaswinder's death, when Rajinder made financial disclosure, and none of the property documents had Jaswinder's name. That said, Jaswinder's October 2015 answer pleaded that he had no interest, and he affirmed that in his evidence at the focused hearing:

• Balwant offered to purchase a property to help Jaswinder "set up a business in automotive repairs", and Balwant "paid for this property with his own money"
• his "common law spouse" (being Rajinder) is the "rightful/legal owners to this property"
• Dipakshi insisted that he make the Trust Agreement and Will so that if he died then "any inheritance that I would receive from [his] father, would be used to financially support her".
• "I do not own this property nor have I ever owned it"
• Rajinder "agreed to pay the rent and signed the cheques" (though this evidence was a lie)

[68] On cross-examination at the focused hearing, Jaswinder was unshaken on these points. He reaffirmed that he had no interest in the Britannia Road property, and prepared the Trust Agreement to placate Dipakshi.

[69] If anything, this evidence shows that Jaswinder intended to lie to Dipakshi about his and, consequently, her ownership interest in the Britannia Road property. It definitely doesn't show that Rajinder intended to hold the property in trust for Jaswinder. Indeed, Rajinder didn't know most of what Jaswinder was telling Dipakshi or what Dipakshi was doing at the property.

3. Rajinder's Credibility

[70] For the focused hearing, Rajinder's affidavit evidence said nothing about the Britannia Road property. She wasn't cross-examined on the ownership of property or the Trust Agreement at that hearing.

[71] At trial, Rajinder's evidence aligned with Jaswinder's evidence:

• she purchased the Britannia Road property in August 2005
• Balwant paid some or all of the down payment, and acted as a guarantor
• they expressly excluded Jaswinder from the property because of his affair with Dipakshi
• the investment was for Nimerta's benefit

[72] Dipakshi argues that Rajinder is lying. She points to several inconsistencies in Rajinder's evidence that she says undermines all of Rajinder's evidence. I disagree. Though Rajinder's memory wasn't always great, some of these events happened over 20 years ago. I found her otherwise to be honest, and her evidence was inherently reasonable in the circumstances of this case. She was a credible witness, though sometimes unreliable. I didn't find that she deliberately lied. See R v. GF, 2021 SCC 20, at para 82; R v. HC, 2009 ONCA 56, at para 41; and R v. King, 2025 ONSC 2448, at para 15.

i. Rajinder and Jaswinder's Relationship

[73] Dipakshi's theory is that Jaswinder concocted the narrative that he and Rajinder reconciled in 2003 to prevent Dipakshi from making any claim over the Britannia Road property (which was purchased in 2005). Given Justice Emery's finding that Dipakshi and Jaswinder separated in 2015, this submission has become less important. But Dipakshi argues that Rajinder's testimony shows that she tailored her evidence to align with Jaswinder's position:

• Jaswinder pleaded, in November 2015, that he and Rajinder separated around March 2003
• Rajinder's answer, which was filed a few days later, simply denies that she's a property party to the proceeding
• Jaswinder's lawyer prepared Rajinder's answer
• Rajinder then swore an affidavit in September 2017 stating that she and Jaswinder reconciled in 2003, and have lived "together in a common law relationship" since then
• according to Rajinder, Jaswinder returned to living at Chieftan Circle with her, his parents, and Nimerta in 2003 after he and Dipakshi separated
• Rajinder's tax returns describe her marital status as variously common-law (2020), single (2015, 2019), and divorced (2017, 2018).
• Rajinder's evidence that she didn't know Jaswinder received a conditional sentence for fraud in 2007 even though they were living together isn't believable
• the Application for Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee, which Rajinder signed and swore was true, states that Jaswinder was married when he died
• in cross-examination, Rajinder said that Jaswinder was, at the time of his death, married to Dipakshi
• the Statement of Death states that Jaswinder was married, and Rajinder signed as his Spouse

[74] I don't agree with Dipakshi. Taking the evidence as a whole, I don't find that Rajinder tailored her evidence.

[75] Jaswinder was a liar and cheat. He misled both Rajinder and Dipakshi about his relationships with each of them. Uniquely, Jaswinder continued living with Rajinder, Nimerta, and his parents even though he and Rajinder were divorced. In 2007 or 2008, Rajinder and Jaswinder had sexual relations, though they didn't reconcile. Jaswinder told Rajinder that he and Dipakshi separated in 2003. In 2019, the court found that, in fact, they had separated in 2015. Even then, there's evidence that they were together, on-and-off, until 2017. As a result, it's not surprising that Rajinder and Jaswinder's relationship status was confusing to her—Jaswinder's relationship with Dipakshi was equally confusing.

[76] And Rajinder was clear in her evidence that "reconciled" and "common-law" meant, to her, "living in the same house" "as partners" but not "as husband and wife". She was candid that she and Jaswinder only had a conjugal relationship once or twice in 2007 or 2008, and then she broke it off.

[77] Rajinder relied on other people to complete paperwork, and she believed they knew about the nature of her relationship. She signed what was put in front of her, but attempted to correct matters when she discovered that someone had made a mistake. For example, she called CRA to correct her marital status on her tax return, which her accountant prepared.

[78] It's also plausible that the people around Rajinder were unsure of her relationship status or wanted to maintain the fiction that she and Jaswinder were still married given that they continued living together. For example, in the case of the death certificate, Rajinder's brother-in-law filled it out. He insisted that she was Jaswinder's spouse: "he said, you are the one taking care of him. You took care of him at the end of his life, like, when he had COVID for so many days." To add, Dipakshi and Jaswinder were never formally divorced before he died so, technically, he was married to Dipakshi, albeit separated.

[79] Both Dipakshi and Rajinder testified that they didn't know Jaswinder had been convicted or sentenced for fraud in 2007. If, for example, he had a curfew, he may have been able to hide that from Rajinder.

[80] At bottom, even though Jaswinder may have been involved in Rajinder's defence of the case, her oral evidence is consistent with her pleading, her affidavit, and the documentary evidence. She and Jaswinder had a complex relationship that changed and morphed over the years, and thus wasn't easily described by them or to anybody else, keeping in mind that Jaswinder was a liar and a fraudster.

ii. Ownership and Control of the Britannia Road Property

[81] Rajinder doesn't dispute that Jaswinder participated in the purchase or the maintenance of the property. He helped incorporate 166, renovated the units, opened the bank account, and found tenants. He also operated a car detailing business from the space until 2006 or 2007.

[82] There's also no dispute that Jaswinder signed cheques from 166's account, including to pay the rent on apartment for him and Dipakshi. He wasn't a signing authority, so he signed as Rajinder without Rajinder's knowledge or consent.

[83] Dipakshi submits that the evidence also shows that:

• Rajinder didn't know what it meant to be the director of a company
• Rajinder had no money to buy the property
• Rajinder had little or no experience in construction

[84] Dipakshi also argues that Rajinder's evidence was internally inconsistent about who bought the property. Dipakshi submits that Rajinder testified that she and Jaswinder "bought the unit", and then quickly changed her evidence to say that she and Balwant bought the unit:

Q. So ma'am, we, we know the position that, that's being taken. I take it what you're saying is, is that at some point Mr. Bhooi said to you, I have no interest in this unit. Is that what you're telling us?

A. Yes.

Q. When did he say that to you?

A. He never had, he told me he never had any interest.

Q. I'm asking when he said that to you.

A. Since we bought it ...

Q. So since we bought....

A. Me and my dad.

Q. Repeatedly — sorry. Since we bought it?

A. Since me and my father-in-law. [emphasis added]

[85] Dipakshi concludes that the inference from all of this evidence is that Jaswinder was the actual owner of the property: he controlled the business, he signed the cheques, Rajinder didn't know anything about running the business, and she unintentionally disclosed the truth in cross-examination.

[86] Again, I don't agree with Dipakshi's characterization of the evidence. Rajinder's evidence was clear:

• her sister bought an investment property before her, and told her how a corporation worked and what a director did
• she didn't have a lot of money, and Balwant paid for her nursing school expenses
• she had an interest in construction, but Jaswinder got the workers and arranged for the unit to be repaired

[87] I also don't agree that Rajinder's evidence was internally inconsistent. Rajinder's use of "we" may be confusing. But all the evidence leads me to conclude that, in this passage, she meant her and Balwant.

iii. Rajinder's Role as Estate Trustee

[88] Rajinder testified that she became the executor of Jaswinder's estate in 2021. When asked why she'd made no efforts to find Jaswinder's bank accounts, Rajinder said, "because I'm not estate yet." Dipakshi argues that Rajinder is lying about her management of Jaswinder's estate.

[89] I don't agree that Rajinder is lying here. In June 2021, Rajinder applied for probate. Under Jaswinder's November 29th Will, Rajinder is the estate trustee. Dipakshi filed an objection in August 2021. This process is ongoing.

[90] In any event, Rajinder isn't lying when she says she's the executor of Jaswinder's estate—that's what his Will says.

iv. Kloog Contracting

[91] At the start of the case, Dipakshi was claiming an interest in Kloog. Since then, she's abandoned her claim, likely because Kloog has no assets. That said, she argues that Rajinder and Jaswinder operated Kloog like they did 166, which shows a common scheme.

[92] Rajinder incorporated Kloog, which is a construction business, in 2015. She was and is the sole officer, director, and shareholder. She established the company to make some money for Nimerta. Jaswinder was running the company. Balwant found the workers, and Jaswinder hired them and monitored them. Jaswinder got paid by taking "cash on the side".

[93] The problem with Dipakshi's argument is that even if Jaswinder was "running" Kloog or the "face of the business" as her lawyer asserted, that doesn't mean that Rajinder was holding the business in trust for him. Rajinder's description makes it sound like she was the owner and operator, and Jaswinder was managing the business for her. Even though she didn't receive a salary or dividends, she seemed satisfied by Jaswinder earning some income from the venture, which he used to support Nimerta. The same was likely true of the Britannia Road property—he operated the auto detailing business from there, and there's no evidence he paid rent or maintenance.

v. Other Inconsistencies

[94] On cross-examination, Rajinder testified that she and Jaswinder didn't "get back together", and agreed that they weren't "common law". At the same time, she acknowledged that they lived together "as husband and wife" in 2007 or 2008. She then clarified: "We slept in the same room, but not for a long time. Like, just for one or twice, I did not like it." I infer from this evidence that they had sexual relations once or twice, but then stopped. I don't see this evidence as inconsistent. Sexual relations don't determine whether parties have reconciled, or remain separate and apart. See Mensah v. Agogo, 2022 ONSC 7077, at para 22. It's believable that Rajinder and Jaswinder were separated since 2003, but had a momentary indiscretion, especially given their unique living situation.

[95] Again, on cross-examination, Rajinder deposed that Balwant "had an interest in the company and the property". That answer is inconsistent with her other evidence that Balwant had no interest in the Britannia Road property or 166. But Dipakshi overstates the importance of this inconsistency. Almost immediately, Rajinder clarified that Balwant is the guarantor. There's no dispute that Balwant either co-signed or guaranteed the mortgage loan for the Britannia Road property. That's what she meant by "interest": "I said it because I assumed, I thought because he's the guarantor of the mortgage, so that's why I assumed."

[96] Further, Balwant himself testified that he had an "interest" in the Britannia Road property: "I want my granddaughter's future to be set, and I, that's what, that's why I have an interest in this property, and that's why I bought the property." They're both using the word "interest" to mean a concern or a feeling that causes special attention, not a right or legal share.

4. Conclusion

[97] As foreshadowed above, Dipakshi has failed to prove that Rajinder was holding 166 or the Britannia Road property in trust for Jaswinder. His uncontradicted evidence was that Rajinder owns the property. Balwant's and Rajinder's uncontradicted evidence is that Balwant helped Rajinder buy the property as an asset for Nimerta's future benefit.

[98] To the extent that Jaswinder collected rent or maintained the property, he did so without any expectation of financial return or ownership interest. It's plausible that he did so for the same reason Rajinder bought it: to create a nest egg for Nimerta.

[99] It's true that Jaswinder represented to Dipakshi that he owned the property, and she had an interest in it. He even manufactured a trust agreement. But, sadly, he lied to her. He didn't buy the property. He didn't have an interest to give her. And the Trust Agreement is, on its face, false: he didn't own 166's shares, so he was in no position to "confirm" that Dipakshi was a trustee. Rajinder's evidence wasn't always accurate. But given the lies that Jaswinder told her and Dipakshi, that's not surprising.

[100] Leaving aside the standing issue, at bottom, Dipakshi hasn't proven a certainty of purpose. She says the Britannia Road property was being held in trust for her. But the totality of the evidence is that it was bought for Nimerta's future. And she hasn't proven a certainty of intention. Other than Jaswinder's lies to Dipakshi, there's no evidence that Rajinder intended to buy or hold the property for Jaswinder.

B. Issue #2: Was Jaswinder Unjustly Enriched by Dipakshi's Contributions to the Britannia Road Property?

[101] If I'm wrong, and Rajinder is holding 166 or the Britannia Street property in trust for Jaswinder, Dipakshi must also prove that she was unjustly deprived to claim a constructive trust.

[102] Constructive trusts are understood primarily as a remedy, which may be imposed at a court's discretion "where good conscience so requires." The cause of action in unjust enrichment may provide one such basis, so long as the plaintiff can also establish that a monetary award is insufficient and that there is a link between their contributions and the disputed property. See Moore v. Sweet, 2018 SCC 52, at paras 32-33.

[103] The elements of unjust enrichment are (a) that the respondent was enriched; (b) that the applicant suffered a corresponding deprivation; and (c) that the respondent's enrichment and the applicant's corresponding deprivation occurred in the absence of a juristic reason. See Moore, at para 37.

[104] The first two elements of unjust enrichment require an enrichment of the respondent and a corresponding deprivation of the applicant. To establish that the respondent was enriched and the applicant correspondingly deprived, it must be shown that something of value—a "tangible benefit"—passed from the latter to the former. See Moore, at para 41.

[105] In closing submissions, Dipakshi analogizes to Moore: "Although the applicant did not pay for the life insurance premiums of her husband, she certainly contributed to the value of the estate by providing unpaid labour for which she deserves compensation."

[106] Along with providing input on the renovation and maintaining or cleaning the Britannia Road property, Dipakshi says she helped with Jaswinder's home renovation business. For example, she says she accompanied him to worksites, picked up orders from Home Depot, and assisted him with "dry walls, tiles on the floor, painting, removing debris from the sites, taking garbage to the main dump in Mississauga, fixing cabinets, fittings, electricals, cleaning and setting up."

[107] The evidence, at its highest, shows that Dipakshi contributed some labour to Jaswinder's auto body business and his home renovation business. There's no claim for a beneficial interest in the auto body business and Kloog Contracting is no longer a going concern. To the extent that Dipakshi helped clean or maintain the Britannia Road property, that's insufficient to prove that she made a contribution that enhanced or preserved the property. Dipakshi's domestic services have some value, but there's no evidence that this labour enriched Jaswinder. For example, there's no evidence that Dipakshi's labour or time allowed Jaswinder to save costs. There's also no evidence that Dipakshi did anything to maintain the other units in the building.

[108] As a result, there's no deprivation and corresponding enrichment. Thus, Dipakshi's claim for a constructive trust fails.

[109] As Jaswinder's net family property is zero, the equalization payment is also zero. See FLA, s 4(5); Nixon v. Lumsden, 2020 ONSC 147, at para 130. As a result, there's no basis for an unequal division under FLA, s 4(6).

C. Issue #3: Did Jaswinder Fraudulently Convey Property to Rajinder?

[110] Every conveyance of real property or personal property made with intent to defeat, hinder, delay, or defraud creditors or others of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, accounts, damages, penalties, or forfeitures are void as against such persons and their assigns. See Fraudulent Conveyances Act, RSO 1990, c F.29, s 2.

[111] A creditor is entitled to invoke the Fraudulent Conveyances Act to recover the proceeds of a conveyance void under the statute from a fraudulent transferee. The fraudulent transferee is and bears all the liability of a trustee of the property or its proceeds for the benefit of creditors. See Allen v. Hennessey (1997), 107 OAC 69, at para 5 (CA). So, if Jaswinder fraudulently conveyed property to Rajinder, the transaction is void, and Rajinder would hold the property in trust for the benefit of Jaswinder's creditors.

[112] The elements of a fraudulent conveyance claim are (a) the plaintiff is a creditor (i.e., a person to whom a debt is due); (b) the debtor is an insolvent person or unable to pay their debts in full; and (c) the debtor conveyed their property to another person with intent to defeat, hinder, delay, or prejudice creditors. See EnerWorks Inc. v. Glenbarra Energy Solutions Inc., 2012 ONSC 414, at para 51.

[113] The types of facts that can support an inference of such an intention to convey property away from creditors—present or future—are often described as "badges of fraud". See Ontario Securities Commission v. Camerlengo Holdings Inc., 2023 ONCA 93, at para 12.

[114] Dipakshi hasn't proven a fraudulent conveyance. Her claim is that Jaswinder conveyed assets to Rajinder so she could buy the Britannia Road property to defeat CRA, who were chasing Jaswinder for unpaid taxes.

[115] First, Dipakshi wasn't a creditor of Jaswinder's, at least not in 2005. So she has no standing to assert a fraudulent conveyance claim. Second, she hasn't proven any conveyance from Jaswinder to Rajinder. He never owned the shares of 166 and he was never on title to the Britannia Road property. There's no evidence of him transferring money or other assets to Rajinder for her to buy the property. All of the evidence is that Balwant paid most or all of the down payment. As a result, there's no basis to void the transaction, or to impose a constructive trust over the property for Dipakshi.

D. Issue #4: Is Dipakshi Entitled to Spousal Support?

[116] At trial, Rajinder conceded that Dipakshi is entitled to spousal support from 2015 to 2021. Dipakshi concedes Jaswinder financially supported her from 2015 to 2017, which Justice Emery also found. She's seeking mid-range support. Rajinder made no submissions on this issue.

[117] Based on Justice Emery's findings about Jaswinder and Dipakshi's imputed incomes, the mid-range spousal support is $385 for 2015 to 2017 and $490 for 2017 to 2021. As a result, the total amount of spousal support for this period is $31,364.22. Justice Emery found that Jaswinder directly or indirectly gave $19,230.89 to Dipakshi between June 2015 and 2017. Thus, the net amount of spousal support is $12,133.33.

[118] I endorse an order that Jaswinder's estate shall pay retroactive, lump sum spousal support to Dipakshi in the sum of $12,133.33. This order bears interest at the post-judgment interest rate set out in the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, s 129, of 4 percent per year effective from the date of this order.

V. CONCLUSION

[119] After over 20 years of acrimony and 10 years of litigation, at least this case is now over for Rajinder and Dipakshi. It's sad that Jaswinder's dishonesty left both parties fighting over his meagre assets and broken promises. I hope, now, they will at least have some finality.

[120] The parties will engage in meaningful discussions and negotiations respecting the costs of this trial. If they can't resolve costs, any party seeking costs will serve, file, and upload to Case Center costs submissions (2500 words), any relevant offers to settle, and their bill of costs by August 15, 2025, 4pm. The other party's responding submissions (2500 words) will be served, filed, and uploaded to Case Center by August 29, 2025, 4pm.

Agarwal J

Released: August 1, 2025