Ruling orders return of $400,000 transferred from stepfather's estate to her personal account
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered a deceased man’s stepdaughter to return the sum of $400,000 taken from his estate as she failed to establish that he intended to give her that money before he died.
The case of Hugginson v. Hugginson, 2025 ONSC 1797 revolved around the estate of a man with a will dated August 2012. The respondent in this case was his stepdaughter, the estate trustee named in his will, and his appointed attorney for property and personal care.
In early September 2022, the man asked the respondent to arrange a meeting with his investment advisor from IG Wealth Management. According to the respondent, her stepfather wanted to transfer to her the sum of $400,000 as a gift.
Meetings followed, which the respondent did not attend. The man’s lawyer emailed the respondent to tell her that he was planning to prepare a letter outlining her stepfather’s intentions.
On Dec. 22, 2022, the investment advisor told the respondent that she had to meet the stepfather to get instructions about the gift. This meeting did not push through because the man died four days later. He did not transfer any money to the respondent before his death.
In July 2023, the respondent received correspondence from IG Wealth stating that it would arrange the transfer of $400,000 after she signed and returned a full and final release. After she did so, she transferred that amount to her personal investment accounts.
The applicant in this case was the respondent’s sister, was another stepdaughter of the deceased, and was a beneficiary named in his will. She applied for the return of the $400,000 to the estate on the ground that the inter vivos gift was invalid.
The respondent argued that there was a valid inter vivos gift even though its completion occurred only after the donor’s death. She claimed that he had a consistent intention to give her that amount of money and did everything in his power to ultimately deliver the gift.
The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario granted the application. The court ordered the respondent to return to the estate the sum of $400,000 on the basis that it was not a valid inter vivos gift.
The court noted that there were three elements for the validity of an inter vivos gift: the donor’s specific intention to make a gift, delivery of the gift, and the donee’s acceptance. In this case, the gift did not meet the test’s first element of intention.
The court ruled that the respondent failed to give clear, convincing, and cogent evidence about her stepfather’s specific intentions about the gift, including whether he intended to make it or how much he planned to give. The court noted that she admitted during cross-examination that she did not truly know his intentions.
Next, the court held that the respondent failed to establish that delivery of the gift was complete, considering that the sum of money had not been transferred to her before her stepfather’s death. The court found that the deceased did not give up complete control of the gift and did not authorize IG Wealth to complete the gift before he died.
The court then explained that the rule in Strong v. Bird (1874), L.R. 18 Eq. 315 did not apply to the facts of this case and did not have the effect of perfecting and completing the gift. The court noted that, for the rule to apply, the respondent should prove her stepfather’s continuing intention to make the gift up to his death, which she could not do.
Lastly, the court referred to the ruling in Morton v. Brighouse, 1927 CanLII 37 (SCC), [1927] S.C.R. 118, which confirmed that an imperfect gift would only be perfected if the donee was appointed the executor and if there was evidence of the donor’s specific intention to give a specific piece of personal property, continuing up to death.
