Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 JULY 2007

Case Commentaries: Pecore And Saylor

In Pecore and it’s companion case, Madsen Estate v. Saylor, the Supreme Court establishes rules and limitations regarding the treatment of gratuitous transfers of assets from a parent to their child. In particular, the Court addresses two conflicting presumptions which historically operated in such cases.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Article by Archie J. Rabinowitz, B.A., L.L.B*

Pecore v. Pecore (2007) SCC 17

Overview of Case

In Pecore1 and it’s companion case, Madsen Estate v. Saylor2, the Supreme Court establishes rules and limitations regarding the treatment of gratuitous transfers of assets from a parent to their child. In particular, the Court addresses two conflicting presumptions which historically operated in such cases. The first, the presumption of resulting trust, which applies to most transfers of property without consideration, presumes that the transferor’s intention is to transfer legal title only to the transferee. This means that when the transferor dies, the transferred assets constitute part of the transferor’s estate, and will be passed on to the beneficiaries of their will. If the recipient wishes to assert ownership of the assets after the transferor’s death, they bear the burden of proving that the transferor intended them to have survivorship rights and a beneficial interest in the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from