Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-17-571920 Date: September 24, 2025 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Sai Chaitanya Cherukumilli, Plaintiff – and – Rajyalakshmi Addepalli, Defendant

Counsel: Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet and Thomas Benstead, for the Plaintiff Robert Curtis and Sofie Hector, for the Defendant

Heard: February 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 2025

Before: des Rosiers J.

Reasons for Judgment

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff ("Mr. Cherukumilli") is the defendant's son. He is suing his mother ("Ms. Addepalli") for conversion of property, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Mr. Cherukumilli also claims a constructive trust on his mother's condominium. He alleges that his mother used funds from his bank account for her own benefit, including to accelerate her mortgage payments on her condominium and to invest in and purchase another condominium in India.

[2] Ms. Addepalli denies that she breached her duties toward her son. She claims she did her best as a single parent to raise her two sons on a reduced salary. She recognizes that she had access to Mr. Cherukumilli's bank accounts while he lived with her to make purchases and payments on his behalf. She denies that she converted his property for her own benefit or that she was unjustly enriched.

[3] The dispute between the parties began as a disagreement over wedding expenses. Mr. Cherukumilli had advanced a sum of $14,615 to his mother to help organize his wedding. This disagreement over the wedding expenses expanded into an inquiry about the financial interactions between the parties over a 12-year period.

[4] For the reasons below, I find that Mr. Cherukumilli has not established that his mother converted his bank account. I further conclude that Mr. Cherukumilli has not established that his mother was unduly enriched nor breached her fiduciary duty towards him when he was a minor or pursuing his university education. He is not entitled to punitive damages nor a constructive trust on his mother's condominium. His claim is dismissed.

Background

[5] Mr. Cherukumilli was born in March 1988. He immigrated from India with his parents and his younger brother in 2001. Within a year of arriving in Canada, his parents separated.

[6] The separation had a profound impact on the family. The children lived with Ms. Addepalli in a condominium in Etobicoke that she purchased in her name. The children had minimal contact with their father throughout the years.

[7] Ms. Addepalli worked as a bookkeeper in Canada. In 2003, she lost her job and was unemployed for three months. At the time, she received minimal and irregular child support payments from her children's father.

[8] It is not disputed that Ms. Addepalli was a strict mother dedicated to her sons' education. She was very concerned about money. She had difficulty making ends meet and was focused on ensuring her children's access to postsecondary education. She chastised her children for wasting food or not saving enough. During the period of time at issue, between 2003 and 2015, she earned an annual income ranging from $30,000 to $50,000.

[9] Mr. Cherukumilli's father did not pay much child support until 2006, when the Family Responsibility Office became involved. At that time, he was supposed to pay $285 per month for two children pursuant to the separation agreement between him and Ms. Addepalli. In 2008, he was ordered to pay $643 per month on an annual salary of $42,469. Ms. Addepalli resolved her disputes over arrears with her ex-husband through minutes of settlement in 2011 and 2012.

[10] Mr. Cherukumilli began working part-time while he was in high school. He testified that his mother asked him to contribute to his education. His mother agreed that she encouraged him to work part-time to save money for his post-secondary education.

[11] Ms. Addepalli gave Mr. Cherukumilli a credit card but she told her children not to carry their bank card in case it got stolen or lost. She had access to both her children's bank accounts.

[12] In 2005, Mr. Cherukumilli began his postsecondary education at U of T. He did not complete his first year and moved to Ryerson University (now Toronto Metropolitan University) to enroll in computer engineering. He completed a four-year baccalaureate in computer engineering and a master's degree in computer engineering, which he finished in the spring 2013.

[13] Mr. Cherukumilli started working in late 2012 and began earning approximately $70,000 annually as a computer engineer.

[14] Starting in 2013, Mr. Cherukumilli and Ms. Addepalli opened bank accounts in India. Ms. Addepalli's purpose was to invest. Initially, there were discussions about creating a fund to finance Mr. Cherukumilli's younger brother's medical school education in India. When this did not become necessary, as the younger brother stayed in Canada for a degree in computer engineering, the mother purchased a condominium in India in 2015. The revenues from that condominium amount to $200 per month, which she gives to her mother in India.

[15] Until the fall of 2015, when he was 27 years old, Mr. Cherukumilli lived with his mother in her condominium in Etobicoke. He did not pay rent. He contributed in kind to some renovations. Occasionally, he testified that he would contribute to groceries.

[16] Mr. Cherukumilli met his wife in late 2014 and married in the fall of 2015. Upon his marriage, he moved in with his new spouse. When he left his mother's home after his wedding, Mr. Cherukumilli had over $90,000 in savings, did not have any student loans, and had recently purchased a car, which he paid in full. He now owns a home in Durham with his wife and continues to earn significantly more than his mother.

[17] The issues between the parties arose out of the payment of wedding expenses. Mr. Cherukumilli gave his mother three checks, totalling $14,615, for the wedding expenses.

[18] Mr. Cherukumilli and his bride were married in Bangalore, India in October 2015 and a reception in Toronto was organized in November 2015.

[19] Mr. Cherukumilli claims he is owed $8,940.89 from the $14,615 he advanced his mother for moneys not spent on the wedding. Ms. Addepalli states that she spent the money in accordance with her discussions with Mr. Cherukumilli, the expectations of his in-laws and various marriage traditions. She also claims that Mr. Cherukumilli offered to pay for the purchase of a new washer and dryer as a gift to her mother for all she had done for him throughout his life. Mr. Cherukumilli denies that he made the gift.

[20] The relationship rapidly soured following the disagreement over the reimbursement of the wedding expenses. Mr. Cherukumilli began the present litigation, in 2017, claiming $10,857 (now decreased to $8,940.89) for the wedding expenses and an additional $75,000, which he claimed was the money his mother used from his account to purchase the condo in India. He also claimed $20,000 in punitive damages.

[21] Mr. Cherukumilli's expert concluded that the funds used to purchase the Indian condo came from his mother's bank account from a reverse mortgage on her Etobicoke condo, not from Mr. Cherukumilli's accounts.

[22] Mr. Cherukumilli amended his Statement of Claim to allege that his mother used funds from his account to accelerate her mortgage payments on the Etobicoke property and secure the reverse mortgage. His claim evolved into a detailed inquiry into the family's finances from 2004 to 2016 and a new claim for constructive trust on the Etobicoke condominium.

[23] The case involves an accounting of amounts transferred from one bank account to another over time, as well as payments to third parties on behalf of one or the other party. The court was provided with experts' reports. For the parties, no amount of money is too small to debate. This focus on both minor and more substantial money exchanges meant that over 4,000 pages of documentation were provided to the court. In addition, the experts retained by each party had to limit the scope of their mandates because of the relatively modest claim amount.

[24] Both parties agree that this is a sad case with deep emotional aspects for them. Mr. Cherukumilli ended his testimony by describing his mother as "oppressive". Mr. Cherukumilli's younger brother concluded his testimony in support of Ms. Addepalli by saying that his mother did not deserve this litigation. Neither party is on speaking terms with the other.

[25] The case raises the issue of whether family members who pool their resources while living together should be entitled to a full accounting of expenses incurred over the time they lived together.

Issues

[26] The issues are as follows:

1. Did Ms. Addepalli convert her son's property for her own benefit?
2. Was Ms. Addepalli unjustly enriched at the expense of Mr. Cherukumilli, from 2003 to 2015?
3. Did Ms. Addepalli breach her fiduciary duty toward her son?
4. Is Mr. Cherukumilli entitled to a constructive trust on his mother's Etobicoke condo?
5. Is Mr. Cherukumilli entitled to punitive damages?

[27] I have found it helpful to divide the 12 years into different periods:

• From 2003 to 2006, when Mr. Cherukumilli was a minor and worked part-time. Ms. Addepalli lost her job for a few months and little child support was paid.
• From 2006 to 2010: Mr. Cherukumilli is completing his undergraduate degree at TMU and Ms. Addepalli begins to contribute more to her mortgage payments.
• From 2010 to 2013: Mr. Cherukumilli is completing his graduate degree and the parties begin investing in India.
• From 2013 to 2015: Mr. Cherukumilli works full-time, earning more than his mother. He continues to live at home until his wedding in October 2015. Ms. Addepalli obtains her reverse mortgage and purchases the condo in India.

Analysis

1. Did Ms. Addepalli convert her son's bank account for her own benefit?

[28] As the Supreme Court of Canada explains in Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 727, at para. 31, "[t]he tort of conversion involves a wrongful interference with the goods of another, such as taking, using or destroying these goods in a manner inconsistent with the owner's right of possession."

[29] Conversion is a positive and intentional act of interference with someone's else possession of a "chattel". The application of the tort of conversion to money is awkward. As Lewis N. Klar & Cameron S.G. Jefferies note, "[a]lthough currency cannot generally be converted, money which specifically has been collected and set aside, promissory notes and cheques can be": Tort Law, 7th ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2023), at pp. 125-26; see also Erica Chamberlain & Stephen G.A. Pitel, eds., Fridman's The Law of Torts in Canada, 4th ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2020), at pp. 155-56.

[30] The interference must be "substantial": Klar and Jefferies, at p. 127, citing William L. Prosser, "Nature of Conversion" (1956-1957) 42:2 Cornell L. Q. 168. Prosser identified several factors to consider: the extent and duration of the control, the intent to assert a right inconsistent with the possessor's right, the good faith of the defendant, and the expense and inconvenience caused by the conversion, among other factors.

[31] Mr. Cherukumilli asserts that his mother "converted" his bank account to her own purposes. Ms. Addepalli responds that when she used her son's account, it was for the family's benefit, including Mr. Cherukumilli's, for example by using it for his education and other ways to support his on-going living expenses.

[32] To establish such conversion, Mr. Cherukumilli must establish the following:

• his mother deliberately used his account;
• the funds converted were specifically set aside; and
• the interference with his account was substantial.

[33] Mr. Cherukumilli did not establish that his bank account was converted because the funds were not specifically set aside for any particular purpose. The money circulated between Mr. Cherukumilli and Ms. Addepalli's accounts. The funds were used to pay various expenses, including tuition fees, books, phone bills, groceries, dentist bills, and computers.

[34] I find that Ms. Addepalli was of good faith in making purchases and investments for the benefit of the entire family, including Mr. Cherukumilli. The tort of conversion has not been established.

2. Was Ms. Addepalli unjustly enriched at the expense of Mr. Cherukumilli, from 2003 to 2015?

[35] Mr. Cherukumilli asserts a claim of unjust enrichment. The requirements of an unjust enrichment claim are as follows:

• there must be an enrichment of or benefit to the defendant;
• at the expense of the plaintiff; and
• there must be no juridistic reason for the enrichment: Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269, at para. 32.

[36] To succeed, Mr. Cherukumilli must prove that his mother has been enriched at his expense without any juridistic reason for such enrichment.

[37] Both experts agree that more money flowed from Mr. Cherukumilli's account than the reverse. The differences between the two experts relate to the qualifications of some expenses that Ms. Addepalli paid for on behalf of her son. For many years, she managed the finances of the household. As indicated, Mr. Cherukumilli left his mother's house with no debt, a graduate degree, a fully-paid car and $90,000, at the age of 27.

[38] Mr. Cherukumilli claims that his mother was enriched by over $91,000. He disputes some of the conclusions of his expert who assessed the debt to be approximately $76,000. Ms. Addepalli's expert concluded that the net transfers between the accounts in favour of Ms. Addepalli were more in the range of $45,000. He also deducted from that amount the expenses that Ms. Addepalli had paid on behalf of her son to conclude that no money was owed.

[39] Mr. Cherukumilli's claims identifies several transfers from his accounts to either his mother's accounts or payments on a credit card in her name. Broadly, he now asserts that he should be repaid $11,625 (money he earned as a minor); reimbursed for his contribution to his undergraduate education; various payments made for household goods purchased by his mother or other moneys unaccounted for (for which his mother does not have receipts or explanations); and $8,940.89 for the alleged misappropriated wedding funds.

[40] Ms. Addepalli denies using her son's money for her own benefit or having been unjustly enriched. She points to the intertwining of the family finances, her support for her sons' education, and her not asking for rent or any other regular contribution.

[41] I review each category of claim in turn.

Earnings while a minor

[42] Mr. Cherukumilli is claiming that his mother used for her own purposes $11,625 from his bank account when he was a minor earning income from his part-time jobs.

[43] Mr. Cherukumilli testified that he was forced to have part-time jobs and that his mother was very strict about not spending any money. Ms. Addepalli admits that she was concerned about money and expected her older son to contribute to the family's expenses without jeopardizing his education.

[44] Ms. Addepalli claims that Mr. Cherukumilli is out of time to claim a refund for moneys used while he was a teenager to support the household expenses. I agree.

[45] The 2-year limitation began to accrue after Mr. Cherukumilli reached the age of majority in 2006: see Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B, s. 6. He began the lawsuit in 2017.

[46] Even if Mr. Cherukumilli could argue that he did not discover that money was missing from his childhood account until his expert did a forensic analysis of both his and his mother's various accounts, I would deny this claim.

[47] The family functioned as an economic unit that required input from every member. His mother was working full-time. When she was laid off, she quickly found another job. Money was tight at the time: there was financial insecurity. It was not unreasonable for a mother to ask her teenage son to get a part-time job to finance his education or even pay for some of the household expenses.

[48] Mr. Cherukumilli cannot claim the return of his earnings while a teenager, which were used for the benefit of his education and living expenses.

Earnings and contributions to undergraduate degree

[49] Mr. Cherukumilli began his studies at the University of Toronto. He did not complete his first year. At the time, he felt depressed about his family life. He transferred to Toronto Metropolitan University in 2006 where he completed a bachelor's degree in computer engineering.

[50] Mr. Cherukumilli's father had contributed over the years to an RESP which was used to pay for the tuition. In addition, Mr. Cherukumilli benefited from an Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) loan.

[51] The reconciliation effected by Mr. Cherukumilli identifies out of the total university tuition for TMU of $28,090.28, OSAP paid $8,962.26; he paid $2,637,51 and his mother, $16,490.51. He further claims other expenses for a total of $6,161.81 for which he seeks reimbursement.

[52] Mr. Cherukumilli's argument is that he should be reimbursed for what he has contributed because it was his parents' responsibility to pay for his university expenses for his undergraduate degree. Mr. Cherukumilli relies on the minutes of settlement entered by his parents (to settle child support arrears owed by Mr. Cherukumilli's father) in which Mr. Cherukumilli's father agreed to pay one third of his sons' university expenses despite his earning more than his ex-wife at the time.

[53] Child support is not paid to the child. It is paid for the child and is said to be the child's right: see e.g. D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, 2006 SCC 37, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231, at para. 38; see also PP v. DD, 2017 ONCA 180, 137 OR (3d) 138, at para. 61. However, it is paid to the parent with whom the child resides. Ms. Addepalli could spend the child support money as she saw fit, including to pay household expenses or to pay for his son's education, which she did.

[54] A child has no recourse to recoup child support from the recipient parent.

Unaccounted for or unexplained transfers between accounts

[55] Throughout the twelve years of account transfers reviewed by the two experts, there are transfers at different times for which there are no receipts or explanations. Mr. Cherukumilli's expert, who is an expert in fraud investigation in employment or commercial enterprises, concludes that such unexplained transfers are suspicious and presumed to be fraudulent.

[56] Ms. Addepalli's evidence was that she did not keep receipts of all expenses that she paid on behalf of her sons over the twelve-year period. I also found that she managed the finances of the household in a responsible and frugal manner with a view to ensuring future benefits to all three members of the household: her two sons and herself. There is no evidence that she provided herself with luxury items, trips, entertainment or expensive clothing at the expense of her sons.

[57] Ms. Addepalli also testified to the expenses that she incurred on behalf of her Mr. Cherukumilli, including tuition expenses, air travel, car insurance, dentist expenses and phone bills.

[58] Mr. Cherukumilli eventually completed a graduate degree at TMU. To his credit, he obtained grants to pay for his master's degree and did not have to pay, nor his mother have to pay, tuition fees. He continued to live at home during that period and did not pay rent.

[59] Upon graduation, Mr. Cherukumilli worked full-time for an annual salary of about $70,000. Again, he continued to live at home and did not pay any rent.

[60] During this period, the possibility of investing in India was raised and Mr. Cherukumilli, on his mother's advice, transferred money to a bank account in India. The purpose was to invest in India to secure funds for his younger brother to attend medical school in India. When the money was no longer needed for that purpose, Ms. Addepalli purchased a condominium that she still rents out.

[61] In his initial statement of claim, Mr. Cherukumilli claimed an interest in the condo which he alleged had been purchased with money from his accounts. The expert evidence demonstrates that this is not the case. Both experts agree that the condominium was purchased by Mr. Addepalli with her own funds arising from the remortgage of her condominium in Etobicoke.

[62] Mr. Cherukumilli is now claiming that his mother's ability to remortgage her condominium can be traced to his money and to transfers that she took from his account. Mr. Cherukumilli's claim is that his mother could not have accelerated her mortgage payments as she did, but for her using some of his funds.

[63] Much evidence was presented on the mortgage payments made by Ms. Addepalli over the years. From 2008 to 2010, she was able to accelerate the payments on her mortgage. This is when Mr. Cherukumilli was completing his undergraduate degree at TMU. Ms. Addepalli's expert's opinion was that Ms. Addepalli's income and receipts of funds during those years made it possible for her to make the accelerated payments, which may have been slightly overstated. Mr. Cherukumilli's expert did not opine on this question.

[64] Ms. Addepalli also testified that she "rented" out her room at times to earn extra income. I also consider that in 2008, Mr. Cherukumilli's father was ordered to increase his child support payments, from $285 to $643 per month. He was also ordered to contribute to the children's extraordinary expenses.

[65] Mr. Cherukumilli has not established that his mother accelerated her mortgage using funds from his account. At the time, he was still living at home and was part of the household, headed by his mother, who managed the finances for the benefit of all of its members.

[66] Mr. Cherukumilli could have moved out. He testified that his mother encouraged him to stay while finishing his university education to save money. He could have decided to separate his finances from his mother's and brother's; for example, he could have decided to pay rent and a fixed contribution to household expenses and stopped sharing his bank information with his mother. Mr. Cherukumilli is now very angry about how he was raised and the pooling of resources he had to endure before his marriage. He was an adult and could have made different choices.

[67] Furthermore, the allegation of his mother's enrichment at his expense must also take into account his own "enrichment" during that period, namely the rent he did not pay, the food he consumed freely, and his use of various household items. It may have been wiser for Ms. Addepalli to secure her son's signature for each payment or transfer. Her evidence, that I find credible on this point, was that she believed that her son was content to let her manage the finances provided that he could have the material things, like a bike, a motorcycle, a car, or computers that he required.

[68] I conclude that Ms. Addepalli was not unduly enriched at the expense of her son while he lived with her. In calculating the net transfer in Ms. Addepalli's favour, it is not appropriate to include Mr. Cherukumilli's earnings as a minor or his contribution to his undergraduate educations. I also agree with Ms. Addepalli's expert that it is appropriate to consider reasonable expenses incurred on Mr. Cherukumilli's behalf and a notional contribution on his part to the household expenses in calculating the amount of the net transfer.

3. Did Ms. Addepalli breach her fiduciary duty toward her son?

[69] Mr. Cherukumilli also asserts that his mother breached the fiduciary duty that she owed him by using his money for her benefit.

[70] A court must determine four issues to conclude that there was a breach of fiduciary duty, per Laskin J. in Can. Aero Service v. O'Malley, [1974] S.C.R. 592, at p. 605:

• Whether there was a fiduciary relationship;
• The scope of the fiduciary duty;
• Whether the duty was breached; and
• Whether liability flows from the breach.

[71] Parents have a fiduciary duty toward their children. What Mr. Cherukumilli must prove on a balance of probabilities is that his mother breached a duty that she owed him and that liability should ensue.

[72] Fiduciaries cannot avail themselves of their position to secure a personal profit (the profit rule), nor put their personal interests ahead of the person for whom it is acting, unless the beneficiary has consented, having been fully informed (the conflict rule): Hawrelak v. City of Edmonton, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 387. In both cases, the fiduciary may be asked to account for any profits made. However, a distinction may be made when the fiduciary acted in good faith and with the principal's best interests in mind.

[73] As Peter D. Maddaugh and John D. McCamus assert, "[a]scertainment of the scope and intensity of a fiduciary duty may be particularly subtle in the context of a fact situation in which a fiduciary owes potentially conflicting fiduciary duties to two different parties", for example to another child: The Law of Restitution, (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 1990) (loose-leaf updated 2025, release 1), ch. 27 at § 27:3.

[74] I find that Ms. Addepalli was never of ill mind toward her son. She had the interests of the family at heart and sought to maximize both her sons' education prospects and her own ability to have financial stability as she aged.

[75] There are two instances when Ms. Addepalli undertook specific tasks which, in my view, required a full accounting from her. First, when she invested with her son in India, she owed him a fiduciary duty: it was clear that Ms. Cherukumilli was relying on her advice to invest. Second, when Ms. Addepalli was given money to pay for wedding expenses, she owed Mr. Cherukumilli a fiduciary duty to pay for expenses related to his wedding or expenses that he had approved.

[76] Both experts agree that with respect to the investment in India, Mr. Cherukumilli was not prejudiced. His investments benefitted him, and his mother did not use his money to purchase the Indian condo.

[77] In managing the wedding expenses, Ms. Addepalli was in a fiduciary position requiring that she be able to account for the payment of expenses.

[78] It is not disputed that Mr. Cherukumilli gave his mother three cheques to pay for wedding expenses, particularly the Toronto reception, for a total of $14,615.

[79] Mr. Cherukumilli concedes that his mother spent $5,569.11. The remaining disputed amounts are reviewed here.

[80] Ms. Addepalli purchased flight tickets for $2,615. Mr. Cherukumilli testified that one of his mother's friends paid for her ticket, and therefore he should be reimbursed even if he had agreed to pay for his mother and his brother's flights to India. Ms. Addepalli did explain the transaction with the friend as relating to a reimbursement for a flight she had purchased earlier. In my view, Mr. Cherukumilli had agreed to pay for his mother's and his brother's trips to India for his wedding. The entire amount should be credited to his mother.

[81] Ms. Addepalli claims additional expenses incurred both in Canada and in India. In particular, she explained the tradition of gifting clothes to the bride, groom and various family members. The arrangement that she had with Mr. Cherukumilli's future in-laws was that Ms. Addepalli would purchase clothes for her side of the family, and the in-laws would purchase clothes for their daughter and their side of the family, with an exchange taking place at the wedding in Bangalore. The documentary evidence supports this traditional exchange. I am satisfied that Ms. Addepalli did make the clothing purchases for her sons and that this was part of the wedding expenses.

[82] I am also satisfied that she purchased train tickets and incurred expenses in India to bring family members to Bangalore for the wedding, arrange for the officiant, and generally comply with the traditions of an Indian wedding. I am also satisfied that she often had to pay cash in India and could not be expected to have receipts for all of her Indian purchases.

[83] I found Ms. Addepalli credible and reliable. She attempted to provide as much information as she could and did so forthrightly. This litigation has been very difficult for her. She had not expected to be asked to account for all the expenses that she had incurred for the wedding.

[84] Finally, Ms. Addepalli has consistently claimed a gift from her son of a washer and dryer in the amount of $1,280. I find it credible and probable that Mr. Cherukumilli offered to pay the replacement cost of a washer and dryer to his mother as he was getting married and moving out to thank her for all that she had done for him. Prior to the wedding, Mr. Cherukumilli was acting as a respectful and thoughtful son. In his speech at his wedding, he thanked his mother "for instilling him with good values", he mentioned being "amazed" that she had provided for her sons as a single parent and they never "missed anything". He spoke of being grateful for his mother's "love, kindness and her iron-fisted fostering", that made him who he was.

[85] The relationship soured after Ms. Addepalli complained about her daughter-in-law and the new in-laws and asked for more money for the wedding expenses. This request precipitated the end of the mother-son relationship and rose Mr. Cherukumilli's suspicions that he was exploited and was not being treated fairly. After the expert report demonstrated that Mr. Cherukumilli was not cheated out of his Indian investment, he was left with claiming a full accounting for the household expenses management over a very long period. This was unfortunate.

4. Is Mr. Cherukumilli entitled to a constructive trust on his mother's Etobicoke condo?

[86] Considering my findings of good faith and lack of evidence of inappropriateness, I conclude that Mr. Cherukumilli is not entitled to a constructive trust on his mother's condominium.

5. Is Mr. Cherukumilli entitled to punitive damages?

[87] Similar to my finding with regards to a constructive trust and in light of my findings of good faith and lack of evidence of inappropriateness, I conclude that Mr. Cherukumilli is not entitled to punitive damages.

Conclusion

[88] The claim is dismissed.

Costs

[89] I encourage the parties to resolve the issue of costs between them. They have already spent considerable resources on this dispute. If they cannot agree, they may approach my assistant for an appointment and I will hear their costs submissions.

des Rosiers J.

Released: September 24, 2025