Khelawan v Bonito, 2026 ONSC 2281

CITATION: Khelawan v Bonito, 2026 ONSC 2281

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00670790-0000

DATE: 2026-04-17

BETWEEN:

BRAHNANAND KHELAWAN

Applicant

– and –

SUMINTRA BONITO, a party under disability by her litigation guardian ANANDI KHELAWAN

Respondent

Matthew Urback, Lawyers for the Applicant

Obaidul Hoque, Lawyer and Sajid Hossain, Agent, for the Respondent

HEARD: November 25 and 26, 2024

1The applicant, Brahnanand Khelawan (referred to as “Dennis” during the hearing and in these Reasons) seeks determination of his financial interest in a three-bedroom bungalow in Scarborough with a main floor and basement units. He does so on the basis of a resulting or constructive trust.

2The applicant and respondent, Sumintra Bonito are son and mother. They are also co-owners as joint tenants of the premises in question, 600 Warden Avenue. Sumintra Bonito came to Canada from Guyana in 1993 with the youngest four of her children being Anandi Khelawan, Deoki Khelawan, Nalinie and the applicant. Their ages are currently around 57, 56, 55 and 53 years respectively. Sumintra Bonito is about 87 years young, illiterate and worked sporadically also receiving Old Age Security benefits, presumably as of age 65. She also has a stage 5 Parkinson’s and moved out of 600 Warden to a nursing home in June, 2022.

3It was determined during this litigation that she required a litigation guardian which Anandi Khelawan agreed to become. Sumintra Bonito tendered no direct evidence.

4This matter was informally cased managed by Justice Centa who directed the litigants tender their evidence in chief by affidavit with limited time for examination in chief and cross-examinations.

Background

5The initial property purchased by and for the family was 25 Brookshire for $355,000 (at paragraph 18 of Dennis Khelawan’s affidavit sworn July 31, 2024). This was apparently motivated by Dennis and Nalinie. The down payment of about $18,000 was provided from savings placed into a Guaranteed Investments Certificate of about $10,000 by Dennis and Nalinie and a loan from a family friend, Ranjan Singh for $8,000. This loan was documented into the form of a Promissory Note dated January 28, 2005 signed by Dennis Khelawan.

6It is not disputed that improvements were required and made generally by Dennis Khelawan. This included his utilizing a credit card of his mother for certain expenses.

7Because Dennis Khelawan and Nalinie Khelawan had bad credit, title to the property was taken in the name of Sumintra Bonito and Anandi Khelawan who was pregnant at the time.

8On February 14, 2007, Nalinie Khelawan was tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident collision. Dennis Khelawan admits this resulted in his becoming depressed and strained the family resources given the loss of Nalinie Khelawan’s financial contribution to the carrying costs of the property. A decision was made to downsize. That is, 25 Brookshire was sold for $468,000 (Dennis Khelawan’s affidavit, paragraph 41) and 600 Warden Avenue was purchased for $282,000 (Dennis Khelawan’s affidavit, paragraph 44).

9According to the real estate lawyer’s trust ledger, this left roughly $100,000 to be used towards the purchase of 600 Warden. The real estate lawyer’s trust ledger for the purpose of 600 Warden noted a balance paid to Dennis Khelawan $68,780.30 (Dennis Khelawan’s affidavit, at paragraph 54).

10Dennis Khelawan’s evidence was that the funds were used to repay the expenses he incurred on his mother’s credit card for renovations ($8,500), to repay Anandi for paying the last three months of the mortgage at 25 Brookshire ($9,000), to repay the loan to Ranjan Singh ($8,000), to provide Deoki with funds arising from the death of Nalinie ($2,000) and clear Dennis Khelawan’s loan/line of credit ($11,000).

11Again, the poor credit history of Dennis Khelawan prevented him from going on title. Instead, title was taken out in the name of Sumintra Bonito and Anandi Khelawan. The details of this were subject to a signed agreement executed May 27, 2008 between Nalini Khelawan and the litigants. It confirmed:

a) the funds to purchase 600 Warden Avenue were provided by the litigants; and

b) on sale of the property all net proceeds were to be paid to the litigants (without specifying any proportion (exhibit to the affidavit of Dennis Khelawan sworn July 31, 2024).

12As indicated, this property had two units, the main floor and the basement. Dennis Khelawan moved into the basement unit. It was not disputed that in addition to the carrying costs, this property also required renovations and expenses were incurred. This work was directed by Dennis Khelawan, who claims he used the balance of the proceeds from the sale of 25 Brookshire of about $30,000 in this regard.

13As will be noted below, as a family, no formal records or accounting of who paid for what was kept. I accept the evidence of Anandi Khelawan and Dennis Khelawan of times when one of the group were unable to meet the obligation, another would make the payment and hopefully be reimbursed.

14At the heart of this dispute is each side attempting to claim what receipts and records exist as an example of their own more significant financial contribution to the carrying costs of the home and disputing of the other side’s financial contribution.

15In 2012, Anandi Khelawan decided to move out with her child. Her holding title of the property apparently inhibited her ability to get assistance with alternative accommodations. In addition, friction had begun between the siblings. This included a male roommate, Kevin moving in with Dennis who was becoming more open about being gay.

16This led to Anandi being removed from the title in 2013 and replaced by Dennis Khelawan. Title of the property in the name of Dennis Khelawan and Sumintra Bonito as joint tenants remains to the present.

17The family dynamic became worse after Dennis Khelawan fell striking his head on February 26, 2018. He suffered a subdural hemorrhage and was not discharged from hospital until April 11, 2018. This disrupted his ability to make financial contributions towards the carrying costs of the property and care for his mother.

18Following his mother moving out in June, 2022, the main floor was renovated. Dennis Khelawan and his partner, Kevin then moved upstairs. The basement unit was rented as of March, 2023 for $1,700 per month.

19The applicant’s materials total more than 900 pages which includes voluminous but incomplete banking, mortgage, utility, insurance and credit cards receipts and payments. The respondents’ materials are in excess of 400 pages, that is, also voluminous but incomplete receipts and records pertaining to the care and costs of the property. Neither side attempted to tender any analysis over any significant length of time where the records were the least incomplete or could fairly allow the Court to extrapolate the division of payments of the care and costs of the property.

20Instead, the applicant made submissions that conceding to not being entitled to 100 percent of the equity in the property (actually around a maximum of 80 to 85 percent). The respondent submitted that because the records were incomplete, the application should fail and the division should be on an equal basis (as would occur if the premises were held as tenants in common).

21At the conclusion of the trial, I raised my concerns with the adequacy of the evidence tendered by both sides as to their respective contribution to the time and expenses associated with maintaining the property. I directed the parties submit either a joint brief and/or their individual calculations representing each party’s payments and percentage interest towards the care and cost of 600 Warden Avenue and provided a deadline of January 6, 2025 for same.

22I received, uploaded to Case Center a “Further Submissions” document from the applicant attempting to detail his contributions with a focus on 2021 given there was more documentation available. The respondent uploaded to Case Center an “Aide-Memoir” and also using 2021 to demonstrate previously produced payments of utility bills.

23Unfortunately following delivery of these materials, the matter was misplaced by me and within the court system which resulted in this delay of it being determined. I regret and apologize for that delay.

24Fortunately, counsel for the applicant followed up with Trial Office on April 10, 2026 as to the status of the matter which was passed on to me.

Analysis

25In both oral and written submissions, counsel for the applicant relied on the inability of the respondent to produce all of the invoices, receipts or other evidence of what she and other family members other than the applicant had contributed towards the expenses to maintain the property. The applicant also relied on the law of resulting trust or, alternately unjust enrichment and constructive trust.

26As stated in the applicant’s written submissions (at paragraph 10) a resulting trust can occur when “a person’s contribution towards the purchase of property is not reflected in the title ownership.” However, this issue was removed in 2013 when Dennis replaced Anandi on title.

27As a result, I find in these circumstances it would not be appropriate to follow the law of resulting trust and place any onus on the respondent, having her ownership interest on title, to reach a just result.

28Regarding a constructive trust and unjust enrichment, I agree with the applicant’s written submission that the “test is flexible and relevant factors to consider will depend on the situation” (paragraph 14). Further, I rely on the statement in Cairns v. O’Neil 2018 ONSC 7472, (at paragraph 38), “the test for juristic reason is flexible and relevant factors to consider will depend on the situation before the Court.”

29I accept both parties made substantial contributions towards the purchase, maintenance and carrying costs as well as improvements to the property. However, I have concerns with the apparent unequal submission of the quantum expended by each side. Counsel for the applicant assessed and submitted same to be 80 to 85 percent in favour of his client. As stated, the respondent required a litigation guardian due to health reasons which clearly inhibited her ability to tender evidence to support her full financial and other contribution towards interest in the property.

30I find both parties have been unjustly enriched when compared to what they are seeking from this Court. The applicant’s request for an order vesting sole and exclusive title in property as contained in the Notice of the Application is excessive as is the reduced claim for an 80 to 85 percent interest made in submissions. Similarly, the respondent’s request for a 50 percent interest in the property exceeds the apparent contribution and sacrifice made in developing and maintaining the property as an asset.

31Both parties are on title as joint tenants. The relationship between these family members has been fractured and, as a result, each litigant’s interest in their equity in the property needs to be protected. As far as determining how to split the respective interest of the applicant and the respondent, I rely on the directions contained in Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, at paragraph 102 “While determining the proportionate contributions of the parties is not an exact science, it generally does not call for a minute examination of the give and take of daily life. It calls, rather, for the reasoned exercise of judgment in light of all of the evidence.”

Conclusion

32As a result, I find the entitlement to the existing equity on property to be 65 percent in favour of the applicant with the remaining 35 percent in favour of the respondent.

33I order that the joint tenancy be severed (and converted to tenants in common), immediately. As both parties are registered on title, either can force the sale of the property under the Partition Act, R.S.O 1990 c.P.4.

34Neither party can compel the other to sell its portion of the value/equity in the property to the other. However, they are free to negotiate a resolution and I encourage them to do so. This may require an up to date agreed upon appraisal of the fair market value and financing.

35If the parties cannot agree on a resolution within sixty days of the release of these Reasons, the property shall be listed for sale. For certainty and guidance, Dennis Khelawan, having a greater interest shall control the listing and sale. Anandi Khelawan, as the respondent’s Litigation Guardian, shall also have the power to sign all documents on the respondent’s behalf and shall cooperate in the listing and selling of the property.

36The proceeds of the sale shall be held in trust by the solicitor handling the sale who shall distribute the proceeds as follows:

(a) first, make payment of any outstanding debts and expenses such as mortgages, utility bills and solicitor fees;

(b) second, distribute the balance of the funds, if any, 65 percent to the applicant and 35 percent to the respondent, or her Litigation Guardian.

Costs

37At the conclusion of the in person portion of the hearing, I requested the parties upload their respective claims for costs in the event they were successful. In this regard, the applicant provided a draft Bill of Costs seeking $32,485.60 for partial indemnity fees, rising to $48,728.40 if substantial indemnity fees, plus HST and disbursements (including HST) of $4,229.77.

38The respondent’s draft Bill of Costs was somewhat lower, that is, $24,407.50 for partial indemnity fees, rising to $30,039.92 if substantial indemnity fees, plus HST and disbursements (including HST) totalling $3,130.10.

39I have no record of any Rule 49 Offer to Settle. I urge the parties to agree on costs. In this regard, there appears to have been divided success which suggests both parties ought to bear their own costs.

40If the parties cannot agree, each side shall submit to me their written submissions detailing their proposed disposition as to costs, on or before May 22, 2026, limited to five double spaced pages compliant with Rule 4.01 (excluding any essential attachment such as a Rule 49 Offer to Settle) and, in addition to any uploading to Case Center or C-Track, provide a copy of their material to the email address from which they receive these reasons (Harleen.Purewal@ontario.ca).

_____________________________ Mr. Justice G. Dow

Released: April 17, 2026