Background
In Alami v. Haddad, 2025 ONCA 527, the Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmed that resulting trust principles survive divorce — and that s. 14 of the Family Law Act does not displace the equitable presumption.
The parties married in 1995, separated January 1, 2017, and divorced March 14, 2018. The matrimonial home was registered in the wife’s name alone, though both parties contributed financially. The wife sought equalization, support, and tort damages, while the husband counterclaimed a resulting trust in the home. After separation, the wife refinanced the property without notice to him — a fact that became pivotal at trial.
The parties had two adult children, though only one still qualified for child support under the Child Support Guidelines. At trial, Justice Joanne Bruhn found significant disclosure failures, credibility issues on both sides, and incomplete evidence of income or assets.
Trial Decision
Justice Bruhn’s comprehensive decision (January 10, 2024) included these key rulings:
| Issue | Decision |
| Home Ownership | Wife held title on a 50% resulting trust for the husband; home to be sold; no equalization payment; wife solely responsible for the post-separation mortgage. |
| Income Imputation | Wife: $50,000 (2017–2018), $55,000 thereafter; Husband: $50,000 (2017–2018), $70,000 thereafter. |
| Child Support | Husband to pay $218/month for one child. |
| Spousal Support | Neither party to pay spousal support. |
| Tort Damages | Wife’s tort claims dismissed. |
Appeal Issues
The wife appealed nearly every aspect of the judgment but pursued only two arguments at the hearing:
1. Whether the husband could assert a resulting trust after divorce, given that s. 14 FLA applies to “spouses,” not “former spouses”; and
2. Whether she could be held solely responsible for the second mortgage registered after separation.
Resulting Trust Survives Divorce
The Court of Appeal firmly rejected the wife’s argument that s. 14 FLA barred post-divorce resulting trust claims. Justice Coroza, writing for the panel, held that ownership and beneficial entitlement must be determined before equalization under s. 10(1) of the Family Law Act (Martin v. Sansome, 2014 ONCA 14; Rawluk v. Rawluk, 1990 CanLII 152 (SCC); Korman v. Korman, 2015 ONCA 578).
Quoting the foundational rule in Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17:
“The general rule for gratuitous transfers is that the rebuttable presumption of resulting trust applies. Where a transfer is made for no consideration, the onus is on the transferee to show that the gift was intended…. The presumption may be rebutted on a balance of probabilities by evidence that the transferor intended the transfer to be a gift.”
The presumption of resulting trust applied. The trial judge found that both parties had contributed to purchasing their two homes and that it was “highly improbable” the wife had financed them alone. Because the husband was the primary earner and did not intend to gift his interest, the wife failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust. Her argument that s. 14 FLA ceased to apply post-divorce was, in the Court’s words, “of no consequence.”
The Second Mortgage: Correct Outcome, Wrong Lens
The wife refinanced the home in 2018, long after separation, without the husband’s consent. Justice Bruhn held her solely responsible for that debt, invoking s. 5(6) FLA (unequal division). The Court of Appeal found that although that framework was technically misplaced — equalization being determined as of the separation date — the result was right.
“the unequal division “lens” was not the appropriate framework within which to consider this issue. However, the trial judge ultimately and correctly treated the mortgage as a post-separation adjustment in the husband’s favour.”
The refinancing was a post-separation obligation, and she alone should bear it. The panel determined “The trial judge’s mistake in framing the issue had no practical effect on its appropriate outcome.”
Remaining Allegations
The wife’s factum alleged over 50 additional errors, most challenging credibility and factual findings. The Court of Appeal dismissed them summarily, noting none reached the threshold of palpable and overriding error. Her attempt to appeal the consent costs order also failed. The appeal was dismissed with $15,000 in costs payable to the husband.
Practice Takeaways for Family Law Lawyers
| Issue | Takeaway |
| Resulting trust claims | May proceed even after divorce. Section 14 FLA codifies the doctrine but does not limit it. |
| Proof of intent | The transferee (here, the spouse holding title) must rebut the presumption by proving the transferor intended a gift. Absent clear evidence, equity presumes a resulting trust. |
| Post-separation debt | Refinancing or encumbering property without consent creates a personal debt, not a matrimonial one. |
| Disclosure discipline | Incomplete disclosure and self-representation risks can erode credibility and outcomes. |
| Judicial framing | The Court of Appeal will uphold a correct result even if the trial judge mislabels the analytical framework. |
Why It Matters
Alami v. Haddad is a reminder that property law principles continue to operate within family law. Even after divorce, courts will trace beneficial ownership through the equitable lens of resulting trust, ensuring that contributions — not title — drive entitlement. For practitioners, it underscores two key lessons: document every financial contribution, and never assume divorce extinguishes equitable rights.
Let’s continue to elevate the practice of family law in Ontario!
Cheryl Goldhart is a Mediator and Arbitrator who can make a difference in resolving your family disputes.
- Four Decades of Specialized Family Law Practice: Cheryl brings a wealth of experience spanning nearly 40 years dedicated exclusively to family law.
- Masters Degree in Counselling: Her Masters Degree in Counselling informs her uniquely empathetic approach to each case.
- Certified Family Law Specialist: The Law Society of Ontario has certified Cheryl as a Family Law Specialist, recognizing her expertise in the area.
- Accreditation as a Mediator by the OAFM: Cheryl’s expertise is reflected in her accreditation from the Ontario Association for Family Mediation.
- Designated ADR Professional by Ontario’s ADR Institute: As a highly respected arbitrator, Cheryl’s designation reflects her recognized expertise in family law arbitration.
- Recipient of Numerous Awards and Honors: Among Cheryl’s many awards, honours and accolades is the prestigious Award for Excellence in Family Law from the Ontario Bar Association.
Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy
Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.
