Parents sometimes transfer joint ownership of a home to an adult child to avoid probate tax and facilitate a transfer of property on death. However, naming a child joint owner means losing the ability to make decisions about the property.VectorMine/iStockPhoto / Getty Images
A court ruling against a woman trying to reclaim sole ownership of a home after she named her adult son joint owner shows the risks elderly parents face with such arrangements.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected the woman’s argument that her son was only holding his share of the property in trust for her and denied her request to order him to vacate the home, even though their relationship had become contentious.
The decision, released in April and now under appeal, is an example of the potential perils parents face when naming a child joint owner of a home, says Rebecca Studin, an estates lawyer and partner at de Vries Litigation LLP in Toronto, who was not involved in the case.
“If the relationship [with the child] turns sour, you now are beholden to them,” Ms. Studin says.
Ramotar vs. Ramotar, a decision released in April, involves an 88-year-old who lives in a Toronto home she bought with her late husband in 2009.
The couple had six children, but the woman had become estranged from all of them except for the son, who was the respondent in this case. She later reconciled with two of her other children.
The woman became visually impaired in 2014. That same year, the son moved into his parents’ home, even though he owned another property.
In court, the woman said the son didn’t pay rent or any other household expenses until he was ordered to by the Superior Court in January, 2025. Although the son had paid some expenses following the court order, he hadn’t paid them fully, the evidence indicated.
The woman also said the son neither assisted with household chores nor provided care for his aging parents.
Nevertheless, in December, 2020, she named her son power of attorney for personal care.
In December, 2021, her husband died. Weeks later, the woman and son visited her lawyer, during which she signed documents transferring the home to herself and her son as joint owners. The mother and son provided conflicting testimony in court as to who initiated the meeting with the lawyer.
Following the transfer of property, their relationship deteriorated further. The woman became upset with her son for threatening to put her in a nursing home, she alleged in court.
In 2023, she named one of her daughters as power of attorney for property. It was at that time, she said, that she realized that by naming her son joint owner, she had potentially disinherited her other children to the extent of the home’s value.
The woman took legal steps to sever joint tenancy, meaning her son wouldn’t receive her half of the home when she died. However, he remained the half-owner. She asked him to give up his interest and leave, but he refused.
In arguing that she had never intended to gift her son an interest in the home, the woman relied on case law that suggests a transfer of property from a parent to an adult child for no consideration is presumed to be held in trust for the parent.
In the decision, the judge agreed that the presumption applied to the woman’s transfer of joint ownership. However, the judge found the son had successfully argued that at the time his mother made the transfer, she intended it to be a gift.
The judge said the fact that both the woman and her husband had executed mirror wills in 2019, effectively naming their son as sole beneficiary on the death of the last surviving parent, indicated their intention, at least at the time, to leave property to him.
The transfer of joint ownership in the home simply gave effect during the woman’s lifetime to what the couple intended to have happen on death, the judge said.
The judge also found the woman’s testimony as to the circumstances that led to her transferring the property to be inconsistent and unreliable. The judge rejected the woman’s alternate argument that the son had exercised undue influence to obtain an interest in the property.
Finally, the judge said she couldn’t evict the son from the property “given that I have found he is a 50 per cent owner.”
The judge noted the mother could still take steps to enforce the court order against her son for his full share of household expenses. However, as the unsuccessful party in the case, the mother was responsible for her son’s legal costs.
Ms. Studin says parents sometimes choose to transfer joint ownership of a home to an adult child to avoid probate tax and facilitate a transfer of property on death.
However, naming a child joint owner means losing the ability to make decisions about the property – such as taking on a mortgage or selling – without the child’s consent, she says.
“If everyone gets along, you’ll never hear about it,” Ms. Studin says. “But in a situation like [the case above], it can leave seniors vulnerable and without a remedy.”