Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Enforceability of an oral agreement to share purchase and operating costs of a jointly owned property, despite the Statute of Frauds’ writing requirement.
• Application of resulting trust principles where one partner alone funded the downpayment and expenses while the other held a 50% legal interest without contributing financially.
• Unjust enrichment analysis arising from Mr. Thompson receiving title and housing benefits for himself and his children without a corresponding financial contribution.
• Assessment of evidentiary credibility where Ms. Moore produced extensive financial records and Mr. Thompson produced virtually no documentary proof of contributions.
• Treatment of alleged “sweat equity” and informal in-kind contributions in contrast to documented monetary payments and legal obligations under the mortgage.
• Scope of monetary remedies, including reimbursement of downpayment, mortgage, taxes, insurance and proven repair/storage costs, and a separate pending determination of legal costs.

Facts of the relationship and property purchase

Ms. Moore and Mr. Thompson were unmarried common law partners who lived together for just over three years, from October 2020 until December 2023. They had no children together, but Mr. Thompson’s four teenage children resided with them, and two other children joined them three weekends a month. Initially, Ms. Moore owned her own home and was financially managing multiple real estate interests: her house, a cottage, a rental property, and a vacant lot. This arrangement became unsustainable when Mr. Thompson and his children moved into her small bungalow, creating overcrowded living conditions and prompting the search for a larger residence. The parties purchased a new property (the “Property”) in October 2021, placing title in both their names as joint tenants. Both parties signed the agreement of purchase and sale, the mortgage documents, and retained legal counsel to close the transaction. Ms. Moore sold her existing home and used the proceeds, along with additional borrowing and restructuring of her debts, to finance the entire $572,623.88 downpayment and closing costs. Mr. Thompson did not contribute any part of the downpayment. While he refinanced one of his own rental properties intending to contribute $85,000, those funds were ultimately used to pay his other debts, including $27,000 toward a $44,000 credit card charge he had run up on Ms. Moore’s card for dental work in Mexico. Throughout the relationship, Ms. Moore also operated a joint bank account (funded only by her deposits) from which mortgage payments were taken and a joint line of credit secured on her Simcoe, Ontario rental property, to which Mr. Thompson was added on title with a 1% interest strictly to qualify for refinancing; both parties agreed that each would keep their own separate properties and Mr. Thompson did not advance any claim to the Simcoe Property.

Parties’ positions on the property and financial contributions

Ms. Moore’s original theory of the case was that Mr. Thompson’s 50% interest in the Property was held on trust for her because he had not materially contributed to the purchase price or ongoing expenses. When the Property was eventually sold with no equity remaining to support a constructive or resulting trust against the land itself, she amended her application to seek reimbursement on an unjust enrichment basis. She claimed that Mr. Thompson benefitted from her expenditures while she suffered corresponding financial deprivation, and that there was no juristic reason for him to retain those benefits. Her evidence included bank statements, a statement of adjustments, invoices, and other records showing she had paid the entire downpayment and all mortgage, property tax, and home insurance costs totalling $467,961.07 during ownership, plus certain repair and preparation-for-sale costs. In total, she sought recovery of 50% of the downpayment and related closing costs of $572,623.88 and 50% of the operating and repair expenses. Mr. Thompson’s position was that the Property was Ms. Moore’s dream home, that they both knew from the beginning that he could not afford to contribute meaningfully to the purchase or operations, and that he instead contributed “sweat equity” and in-kind support. He pointed to tasks such as building garden planter boxes, purchasing and installing a washer/dryer, building a whelping bed for the dog, performing some basement renovations, and upgrading the electrical panel for a Tesla charger. He admitted he signed the mortgage and accepted responsibility for 50% of that debt and acknowledged paying approximately $4,500 overall during his time in the home, but he maintained that they had always intended Ms. Moore would pay the purchase price and all expenses and that he was placed on title simply to allow her to qualify for the mortgage. He initially pleaded for the return of an $85,000 alleged downpayment contribution, for one dog, and his 2022 Tesla Model 3, and mentioned spousal support in his Answer, but at trial he abandoned those claims and made no spousal support submissions.

Evidentiary record and credibility of witnesses

The trial proceeded effectively on Ms. Moore’s documents alone. The court repeatedly ordered Mr. Thompson to produce financial records showing his alleged contributions, but he failed to comply. Other than a single 2023 T4 slip and his 2023 and 2024 Notices of Assessment, he provided no documentation to substantiate any payment toward the downpayment, operating expenses, utilities, renovations, or repair costs. By contrast, Ms. Moore produced detailed statements, invoices, and a statement of adjustments supporting the figures she claimed. The court found Ms. Moore’s testimony to be forthright, persuasive, and consistent with the parties’ prior dealings. Where the parties had not intended to share ownership or financial responsibility, they kept properties and liabilities separate. For example, Mr. Thompson’s 1% title interest in Ms. Moore’s Simcoe rental property was created solely for refinancing purposes, and he asserted no beneficial claim to it. The judge concluded that it did not fit with the parties’ established practice to suggest Ms. Moore intended to assume all obligations for the Property while Mr. Thompson took a full 50% joint tenancy interest with rights of survivorship. The court preferred Ms. Moore’s evidence over Mr. Thompson’s, finding his assertion that he was merely a “name on title” for mortgage qualification purposes to be inconsistent with their surrounding conduct, the documentary evidence, and the reality that he and his six children resided in the house with minimal contribution to household expenses.

Oral agreement, Statute of Frauds, and part performance

Although neither party specifically argued the point, the judge raised the Statute of Frauds, which requires agreements relating to interests in land to be in writing and signed. The court identified a well-recognized equitable exception: where one party substantially performs an oral agreement relating to land to their detriment, and the other party encourages or acquiesces in that performance, it may be inequitable to allow reliance on the Statute of Frauds to avoid enforcement of the understanding. In this case, the court found there was an oral agreement that the parties would share the costs of purchasing and operating the Property as joint tenants. Ms. Moore’s acts of part performance included selling her home, restructuring and expanding her debt, taking on new borrowing to finance the downpayment, assuming all mortgage, tax, and insurance obligations, and arranging necessary insurance to protect the Property from risk. Both parties signed the agreement of purchase and sale and the mortgage, and both took joint title. These steps, all directly connected to the acquisition and holding of the Property, demonstrated the existence of a pre-existing agreement to share the obligations associated with ownership. The judge found it was not a defence for Mr. Thompson to claim that he signed documents without reading them or that there was no true intention to assume joint responsibility. Given that he stood by while Ms. Moore took all these financial steps in reliance on the joint ownership arrangement, it would be unconscionable to allow him to invoke the Statute of Frauds to defeat the oral agreement.

Resulting trust and unjust enrichment analysis

The court relied on leading authorities on resulting trust and unjust enrichment to analyze Ms. Moore’s claims. It confirmed that where one party gratuitously expends money or incurs debt for the benefit of another, the law raises a rebuttable presumption of resulting trust, placing the onus on the recipient to prove the transfer was intended as a gift. Similarly, when one party receives a benefit, the other suffers a corresponding deprivation, and there is no juristic reason for the enrichment, a rebuttable presumption of unjust enrichment arises. The judge emphasized that common law partnership alone does not imply an intention to gift significant financial benefits, and the actual intention of the transferor at the time of the expenditure is central. Applying these principles, the court found that Ms. Moore never intended to gift Mr. Thompson a half interest in the Property or to gift his share of the downpayment and ongoing housing costs. Instead, she acted to protect both of them from legal consequences under the agreement of purchase and sale when he failed to provide his share of the downpayment, and she reasonably expected that, as joint tenants, they would jointly bear all associated expenses. The fact that they jointly signed the purchase agreement and mortgage and took joint title was, in the court’s view, compelling evidence of a joint venture. Mr. Thompson did not contend that Ms. Moore had gifted him her payments; rather, he argued that it was mutually intended that she alone bear the financial burden. The court rejected this and held that Ms. Moore had gratuitously paid Mr. Thompson’s share of the downpayment and ownership costs, thereby triggering both the presumption of resulting trust and an unjust enrichment claim. Because Mr. Thompson offered no credible evidence to rebut these presumptions and had enjoyed the use of the Property with his children while making only minimal contributions, the court concluded that it would be unjust for him to retain the benefit of joint ownership and occupation without reimbursing Ms. Moore for his 50% share.

Determination of monetary relief and other issues

As the Property had already been sold and there was no remaining equity to adjust between them, the judge determined that the only appropriate remedy was a monetary award in Ms. Moore’s favour. Based on the documentary evidence, the court held that Ms. Moore was entitled to recover from Mr. Thompson 50% of the $572,623.88 downpayment and closing costs, as well as 50% of the $467,961.07 she had paid for the mortgage, property tax, and home insurance from purchase to sale. This established Mr. Thompson’s 50% responsibility for $520,292.47 in core purchase and operating expenses. In addition, Ms. Moore claimed $24,578.74 in repair and maintenance costs to prepare the Property for sale, but she could only substantiate $5,091.22 with documents, so the court awarded her 50% of that amount ($2,545.61). The judge also ordered Mr. Thompson to pay $169.50, representing the cost of renting a storage unit for his personal belongings after separation. Ms. Moore’s separate claim for hydro and heating expenses totalling $23,944.56 failed because she produced no supporting documentation and had acknowledged that Mr. Thompson had made some unspecified payments toward electricity, leaving the court without a reliable evidentiary basis to allocate those costs. Mr. Thompson’s attempt, late in the process, to raise a set-off claim regarding lost rental income and repair expenses at his own rental property—allegedly caused by tenants Ms. Moore had approved—was rejected because he provided no evidence of the alleged losses and had not properly pleaded this claim in his Answer.

Outcome and costs

Ultimately, the court concluded that Ms. Moore had fully established both a resulting trust and unjust enrichment in relation to Mr. Thompson’s share of the downpayment and ownership expenses. Mr. Thompson was ordered to pay Ms. Moore a total of $523,007.58, representing his 50% share of the documented downpayment, closing costs, mortgage, taxes, insurance, and proven repair and storage expenses. Ms. Moore was found largely successful and therefore presumptively entitled to her legal fees and disbursements. Although she represented herself at trial, she had retained counsel for much of the litigation, and the judge directed a separate written costs process, with Ms. Moore to submit a costs brief and Bill of Costs within 14 days and Mr. Thompson to respond within 10 days thereafter. No specific dollar amount for costs was fixed in this decision, so the total costs award in Ms. Moore’s favour could not yet be determined at the time of judgment. In summary, the successful party was Ms. Moore, and she obtained a quantified monetary award of $523,007.58 plus costs to be assessed separately, with the exact costs amount not yet decided.