In today’s housing market, it is increasingly common for parents to help their children financially when buying a home. Although the parent’s intention—whether the funds are meant as a gift or a loan—may be clear at the outset, circumstances such as death or changing family relationships can create uncertainty over time. This is why proper documentation is essential. Clear records protect all involved and preserve family relationships by preventing misunderstandings down the road.

Understanding the Legal Presumption

When a parent transfers money to an adult child without receiving anything in return, the law generally presumes that the transfer is not a gift but is instead held on trust by the child for the parent.

This is because the law presumes bargains, not gifts to adult independent children. In other words, while the child may have legal ownership of the money, the parent is considered the beneficial owner.

This is called the presumption of resulting trust. It applies unless evidence shows that the transfer was intended as a gift.

The presumption can lead to complications if a dispute arises later, particularly when there is no clear record of what the transferring parent intended (gift versus loan) at the time of the transfer.

Making Your Intentions Clear

To avoid confusion and potential disputes, it is critical to establish, from the outset, whether the money is intended as a gift or a loan. If the parent intends the funds to be a loan, certain steps should be taken to document this clearly:

  1. Create a Written Loan Agreement: Courts focus on the intention of the parent at the time of the transfer. A written document illustrating the parent’s intention, prepared contemporaneously with the transfer of funds, provides the strongest evidence of this intent.
  2. Specify Repayment Terms: The loan agreement should outline the terms of repayment, including any interest, schedule of payments, and consequences of default. Even a simple repayment plan reduces ambiguity as it demonstrates the expectation of repayment.
  3. Keep Documentation Accessible: Retain copies of the loan agreement, bank transfers, and any correspondence discussing the loan. This documentation can be invaluable if disagreements arise later.

If the funds are intended as a gift, it is equally important to document that intent. A simple Deed of Gift, gift letter or other written declaration can help to evidence the intention of the parent to give the money with no expectation of repayment. This protects both parties and can be used to rebut the legal presumption of resulting trust.

Common Pitfalls

Problems most often occur when nothing is documented at the time of transfer of funds. What begins as a clear oral agreement can become muddled over the years, especially as family dynamics shift – for example, if the child separates from a partner, if siblings become involved, if the parent’s financial situation changes or if someone dies.

Without clear evidence, one party may later claim that the funds were a gift, while the other insists they were a loan. This can lead to costly legal battles and lasting strain on family relationships.

Final Thoughts

Providing financial assistance to family members can be a generous and helpful gesture, but it comes with potential legal and relational complexities. By clearly documenting gifts or loans (specifying repayment terms), and keeping thorough records, parents can protect their interests and maintain harmony within the family. Clear communication and proper documentation ensure that everyone understands the nature of the transaction, preventing misunderstandings down the road.

If you are considering providing financial help to a child or another family member, it’s important to make sure your intentions are clearly documented. The lawyers at Heath Law LLP in Nanaimo can guide you through preparing a loan agreement or gift documentation to protect both your interests and your family relationships. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.

In real estate transactions, parties rely on the information provided by one another to form a clear understanding of the deal.

Mutual trust and honest communication are essential for meaningful engagement among all involved. The act of misrepresentation, whether through a false statement or the omission of a material fact, undermines that trust. Misrepresentation can significantly influence a party’s decision and expose the other to serious legal consequences.

A recent decision, Sewell v. Abadian, a 2025 British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling, illustrates how courts in BC address the issue of misrepresentation by omission.

In Sewell, the seller, a former realtor, failed to disclose in the disclosure statement that an addition to the home did not have a permit, even though it was known to him. He crossed out relevant sections of the disclosure statement stating only that he had not lived in the home himself. The Court concluded that the buyer had reasonably relied on the seller to disclose everything he knew about the property. By crossing out parts of the disclosure statement, the buyer believed the seller was indicating he was unaware of the answers to those questions.

The seller’s omission was found to constitute misrepresentation, entitling the buyer to rescind the deal and recover a $300,000 deposit. The Sewell decision reinforces the legal and ethical responsibility of full disclosure in real estate transactions. It makes clear that silence or selective omission can amount to misrepresentation with serious consequences, and that courts will scrutinize attempts to obscure or withhold material information.

For anyone involved in real estate, this case underscores the importance of transparency and the potential risks of failing to disclose known issues.

In real estate transactions, buyers rely on information provided by the sellers and their realtors to make informed decisions.

Practices like phantom bidding, where false or non-existent offers are alluded to in order to create a sense of competition, undermine that trust. This deceptive tactic misrepresents the actual interest in a property, manipulating buyers into making higher offers based on misleading information. Such behavior erodes the integrity of the transaction and can damage the credibility of those involved. Tran v. Brickman, a recent 2025 Ontario Superior Court decision illustrates how courts in Canada address issues of misrepresentation.

The seller in Tran fabricated offers, falsely communicating to the only buyer that there were other offers in play. To complete the deal, the buyer would have to increase their offer. The court found that these offers, allegedly made by other parties, were nothing more than “oral puffery.” They were not valid under Ontario’s real estate regulations, which require offers to be in writing.

As a result, these were found to be phantom bids.

The buyer was awarded $28,600 in damages under the loss of opportunity doctrine, recognizing the buyer’s lost chance to negotiate fairly. The ruling reinforced that offers must comply with real estate regulations or they could be seen as phantom bids in Ontario, leading to misrepresentation.

Ontario has taken steps to regulate phantom bidding, including rule changes in 2015 and increased enforcement. British Columbia has seen fewer formal complaints and has therefore not adopted similar regulations, instead continuing to rely upon existing ethical standards. The case law in British Columbia on phantom bidding is limited, however, there are signs of growing attention to the issue. In July 2023, real estate boards across British Columbia’s lower mainland introduced the Disclosure of Multiple Offers Presented form.

This form requires listing agents to disclose the number of offers and brokerages involved, enhancing transparency and aiming to boost buyer confidence in competitive offer situations. Transparency does remain limited, as actual offer details remain hidden.

While not a direct response to phantom bidding, it is a clear step toward increased accountability in offer presentation.