CITATION: Savage v. Duvall, 2026 ONSC 405
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Betty Anne Savage Applicant
– and –
David Thomas Duvall Respondent
Scott Hawryliw, for the Applicant
Jeffery Beleskey, for the Respondent
HEARD: December 10, 2024
REASONS FOR DECISION
Casullo J.
Overview
1This dispute centres around the ownership interests of the property located at 1102 Shamrock Marina Road, Gravenhurst, Ontario (the “Property”).
2The Applicant, Betty Anne Savage (“Betty Anne”) seeks an order removing the Respondent’s, David Thomas Duvall (“David”), name from title to the Property.
Background
3Betty Anne is the mother of Rod Savage (“Rod”).
4David is the father of Michele Duvall (“Michele”).
5In 2016, Rod was in a relationship with Michele. Around this time, Rod expressed interest in buying a home. He earned enough money to cover monthly mortgage payments, but he did not qualify for a mortgage in his name.
6Betty Anne agreed to help Rod purchase the Property. The mortgage would be in Betty Anne’s name, and Rod would make monthly payments toward the mortgage and utilities. When Rod was able to qualify for a mortgage on his own, title would transfer to him. Betty Anne and her husband had assisted their daughter in a similar manner.
7It was understood that Rod would live in the house and pay for it. For all intents and purposes, the Property would be Rod’s, although title would be in Betty Anne’s name.
8Michele and her children would be moving in with Rod.
9As part of the offer to purchase the Property, Rod gave Betty Anne $1,000 for the initial deposit. Betty Anne deposited the $1,000 into her account, from which she paid the deposit.
10Rod may have received the $1,000 from Michele. Attached to David’s affidavit is a bank draft to RE/MAX Orillia Realty (1996) Ltd. in the amount of $1,000, dated August 8, 2016. There is also a RE/MAX receipt dated August 8, 2016, in Michele’s name.
11The remaining closing funds, $23,112.83, were handled in a similar fashion. Rod provided $21,100 to his mother, who in turn deposited the money into her bank account. Betty Anne contributed the remaining $2,012.83, and a money order was paid to solicitor Allen French.
12When the plan was in place and ready to be implemented, Betty Anne learned she did not qualify for a sufficient mortgage. Given that Michele and her boys would be moving in with Rod, David agreed to assist with the purchase of the Property, as this would offer them a secure place to live.
13Together Betty Anne and David qualified for the mortgage. The sale closed on October 7, 2016. Both Betty Anne and David attended at Mr. French’s office to sign the necessary paperwork. Both names were added to the title as tenants in common, each holding a 50% interest.
14Rod and Michele moved into the Property. Michele paid $900 per month in rent to Rod.
15From December 2016 to September 2020 the monthly mortgage payments were generally handled as follows:
a. Funds generated from Rod’s business’s bank account were deposited into a joint account held by Rod and Michele (Account Number ***2482). From this joint account, the funds would be transferred to the ‘mortgage’ account. This account was initially in Betty Anne’s name only, but for convenience Michele was added to allow access to the account while Betty Anne was away in winter.
16Commencing September 2020, most funds deposited to the mortgage account originated from Betty Anne’s account with Rod (Account Number ****4398).
17Six years later, Rod and Michele’s relationship ended, and Michele moved out.
18On September 14, 2022, Betty Anne opened a new mortgage account (Account Number ****0584). Mortgage payments were henceforth paid from this account, with funds originating from Betty Anne’s personal savings account, as well as from her joint account with Rod (****4398).
19Given the breakdown between Rod and Michele, Betty Anne wanted to remove David’s name from title.
20David took the position that he is a beneficial owner of the Property and, when the Property is sold, he is entitled to share equally in the proceeds of sale.
Procedural History
21This motion was initially scheduled for June 18, 2024, at which time it was adjourned sine die.
22The matter was before me on December 10, 2024. Given the unique nature of the action, I gave the parties until January 21, 2025, to arrive at a resolution. On January 21, 2025, the parties requested a two-week extension. The matter did not resolve.
23On March 27, 2025, I offered the parties a case conference before Sutherland J. to assist with resolution. The case conference was heard September 29, 2025. Settlement was not achieved, but on consent the parties agreed to list the Property for sale.
24Prior to its listing, the parties were to share the costs of remediation equally. The net proceeds are to be paid to the Applicants’ counsel in trust, and not disturbed without the written permission of the parties, or a court order.
25At my request, the parties have provided an update. The Property sold for $425,000. The net proceeds of sale are $285,323.45.
26The parties do not agree who paid the costs of carrying the property once Michele moved out.
Issues
27The issues before me are:
a. Is the Property subject to a resulting or constructive trust?
b. If so, in favour of whom?
Positions of the Parties
28Betty Anne submits that she holds the Property in trust for Rod. Rod made the initial down payment, with some financial assistance from her. He also made the monthly mortgage payments, with assistance from Betty Anne after Michele moved out.
29David submits that he holds the Property in trust for Michele. He disputes there is evidence proving Rod made any contributions to the Property. It was Michele who paid the initial $1,000 deposit, and for the six years she and her sons lived at the Property, Michele paid $900 per month. This equates to a total of $65,800 paid toward the mortgage alone.
Analysis
30The court examined the concepts of resulting and constructive trusts in 512760 Ontario Inc. (Re) (1992), 91 D.L.R. (4th) 719, at para. 22, where Adams J. quoted from Professor Donovan Waters in his text Law of Trusts in Canada, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1984), at p. 299:
Broadly speaking, a resulting trust arises whenever legal or equitable title to property is in one party's name, but that party, because he is a fiduciary or gave no value for the property, is under an obligation to return it to the original title owner, or to the person who did give value for it.
The courts and the various legislatures of the common law world have used interchangeably the terms "implied trust""resulting trust" and "constructive trust", and the terminology is therefore somewhat confusing. But essentially, while express trusts are those which come into existence because settlors have expressed their intention to that effect, constructive trusts arise not because of anyone's expression of true intent but because B ought to surrender property to A and this is the machinery the court employs in order to get B to do that. In between the express trust, a product of the settlor's intention, and the constructive trust, a machinery imposed by law, are the implied trust and the resulting trust. [Emphasis in original.]
31Adams J. succinctly described that a resulting trust ensures that “the property “results back” to the person entitled to call for it”: 512760 Ontario Inc. (Re), at para. 23.
32In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada found that “[a] resulting trust arises when title to property is in one party’s name, but that party, because he or she is a fiduciary or gave no value for the property, is under an obligation to return it to the original owner”: Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 795, at para. 20.
33The Court of Appeal dealt with a circumstance similar to the case at bar in Andrade v. Andrade, 2016 ONCA 368, 131 O.R. (3d) 532. In that case, the matriarch of the family, Luisa Andrade, lived in the subject property until her death in 2014. When the property was purchased in 1974, legal title was originally taken in the names of two of Luisa’s children, Henry and Maria. In 1979, title was transferred to Henry and his brother Joseph. Joseph died in March 2007.
34In 2009, after transferring Joseph’s half interest into her own name, Joseph’s widow, Manuela, sought a declaration that she was the beneficial owner of a half interest in the subject house. Luisa counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that she was the beneficial owner. The trial judge found for Manuela. The Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision for, inter alia, failing to consider the evidence of Luisa’s intention when the house was put in her children’s names – that she would remain the beneficial owner. Despite title being in their names, Henry and Maria, followed by Henry and Joseph, held the house by way of resulting trust for Luisa. Indeed, both Henry and Maria gave evidence that they viewed the house as Luisa’s property.
35On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that Betty Anne held the Property in trust for Rod. She wanted to assist her son as she had assisted her daughter. However, she could not qualify for a mortgage on her own. David was added to title to help Betty Anne qualify for the mortgage. I find David’s motive for doing so was gratuitous – he was helping his daughter secure a place to live with her sons. Michele would be paying rent regardless of where she lived, and if she and Rod were entering into a relationship, it appears she was willing to make rental payments to Rod. While I trust the rental payments went towards the mortgage, there is no evidence that Michele viewed the rental payments as “rent to own” payments. However, the arrangement between Rod and Michele is irrelevant to this exercise.
36When he was added to title, David did not agree to take any responsibility for the Property, financially or otherwise. In fact, it was not until Michele moved out that David raised the spectre of his 50% ownership interest. I find the mortgage arrangement was created to facilitate Rod’s purchase of the Property, to which Betty Anne held in trust for Rod.
37Both Betty Anne and David were represented by counsel when the paperwork was signed in 2016. If all parties understood that David was holding his 50% ownership in trust for Michele, one would expect this to have been documented. No document to this effect has been produced.
38Mr. French’s actions post-closing further supports the finding that Betty Anne held the Property in trust for Rod. For example, Mr. French gave the keys to the Property to Betty Anne upon closing. David did not receive a set. Additionally, the excess funds remaining from the sale ($96.05) were returned to Betty Anne alone, not divided between Betty Anne and David.
39Michele may have advanced the $1,000 deposit amount to Rod. Again, the court is not privy to the financial arrangements between the two of them. The bank draft and RE/MAX receipt, on their own, do not provide sufficient evidence to establish that Michele did in fact advance the deposit to Rod. However, this amount was nominal relevant to the purchase price of the Property, and holds no sway over my decision.
Disposition
40For the reasons provided, Betty Anne’s Application is granted. I order and declare that Betty Anne held title in the Property as trustee for Rod, and that David’s name should be removed from title. That said, the Property has now been sold.
Costs
41As the successful party, Betty Anne is presumptively entitled to her costs. If the parties cannot resolve the issue of costs, written submissions may be submitted to the court through my judicial assistant (BarrieSCJJudAssistants@ontario.ca), limited to no more than three pages in length, exclusive of any bills of costs or costs outlines. Betty Anne’s submissions are to be received no later than fifteen days following the release of these reasons, with David’s submissions to be received no later than thirty days following release of these reasons.
42If submissions are not received by thirty days following the release of these reasons, the court will assume that the issue of costs have been resolved between the parties.
Proceeds of Sale
43As noted at the outset, the proceeds of sale are being held in trust. Betty Anne is entitled to 100% of this amount. However, I understand the Property may have required some work to prepare it for listing. If David contributed toward this, or towards the carrying costs of the Property between the date Michele moved out and closing date of the sale of the Property, he is entitled to be repaid.
44If these amounts are in dispute, which I understand to be the case, I am prepared to assist. Counsel may provide written submissions, using the same timelines as the costs submissions. Again, should written submissions on the allocation of the funds held in trust not be received within 30 days, the court will assume this issue has been resolved between the parties.
CASULLO J.
Released: January 20, 2026