Gohir v. Nawaz et al., 2026 ONSC 894 | Ontario Superior Court of Justice | Released February 12, 2026
The Story in Brief
Two old friends. Large sums of cash moving across borders. Two Toronto-area real estate purchases. No written agreements. When the friendship soured, those informalities became expensive.
In Gohir v. Nawaz, Justice Fowler Byrne of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was asked to untangle a complex web of money transfers between Aziz Ur-Rahman Gohir (the plaintiff), his old friend Ahmed Nawaz, and Ahmed’s son Muhammad. The transfers totalled hundreds of thousands of dollars, flowed in multiple currencies across Canada and Pakistan, and were used in part to fund two real estate purchases: a condominium on Blue Jays Way in downtown Toronto, and a home on Monarch Drive in Georgetown.
Aziz argued he was entitled to an ownership interest in both properties, or alternatively, repayment of everything he had advanced. The defendants denied any money was owed, claiming Aziz’s transfers were repayments of earlier loans made to him. The court sorted through all of it and transactional lawyers may find the results are instructive.
What the Court Found
Justice Fowler Byrne conducted a summary trial on affidavit evidence with cross-examination. Her key findings were as follows.
Aziz transferred real money — and lots of it. Between December 2015 and September 2017, Aziz transferred $207,934.58 to Ahmed (offset by a $150,000 repayment, leaving a net balance of $57,934.58 owed), and $204,641.92 to Muhammad, which went directly toward the purchase of the Blue Jays Way condo and the Monarch Drive home. The transfers were supported by bank records, lawyer trust accounts, and builder receipts.
Ahmed’s counterclaim failed for lack of evidence. Ahmed claimed he had loaned Aziz $325,000 in cash over several years, that Aziz’s transfers were mere repayments, and that $77,146.54 was left outstanding. But Ahmed produced no documentation of the loans whatsoever, despite admitting at trial that he and his wife maintained records. The court held that he simply had not met his burden of proof.
The transfers were loans, not gifts or investments. Both sides agreed the money was not a gift. The court accepted that the advances were loans, with an expectation of repayment. Aziz argued that Muhammad and Ahmed should be considered joint debtors, but the court ultimately found that there was no evidence to support this conclusion. Accordingly, the party to whom Aziz advanced money was declared the debtor for that sum. This loan characterization ultimately defeated Aziz’s claim that he should be granted an ownership interest in the properties.
No ownership interest in either property. Aziz asked for a constructive trust or resulting trust over both properties, seeking to have title vested in his name. The court rejected both theories. On constructive trust, the court found no unjust enrichment as the juristic reason for the transfers was the loan relationship itself. On resulting trust, the court found that Aziz never actually intended to acquire a proprietary interest since he consistently demanded repayment of his money, not a share of the equity. As Justice Fowler Byrne noted, Aziz was a real estate professional who could have protected himself with a mortgage or a written agreement, and he did neither.
Five Practical Takeaways for Transactional Real Estate Lawyers
- If your client is funding someone else’s purchase, register a mortgage. The court explicitly noted that Aziz could have demanded a mortgage. A registered charge would have given him a secured, enforceable interest in the property instead of an unsecured debt claim against an individual.
- A co-purchaser or co-owner arrangement requires documentation. If a client genuinely intends to acquire an interest in a property by funding part of the purchase price, that must be memorialized in writing, ideally in the agreement of purchase and sale and on title. Informal contributions, regardless of size, will not automatically translate into ownership.
- Private loan arrangements need written terms. The court was asked to reconstruct the nature of money transfers made years earlier, based solely on conflicting testimony. A simple promissory note or loan agreement, specifying the amount, interest (if any), and repayment terms, would have avoided years of litigation and significant legal expense on both sides.
- Foreign-currency transfers require admissible exchange rate evidence. Several transfers were made in Pakistani Rupees. Neither party provided proper exchange rate evidence. The court ultimately used the plaintiff’s printout from a financial website, under protest, because of other evidence showing the historical exchange rates for Pakistani Rupees. In disputes involving foreign-currency obligations, parties need to agree on exchange rates or retain expert evidence under the Courts of Justice Act.
- Demanding repayment undermines an ownership claim. Aziz’s own text messages to Muhammad were used against him. Those messages consistently demanded repayment, which confirmed that he viewed the transfers as a loan, not an investment. Clients who believe they have an ownership interest must assert it early and consistently, in writing.
The Bottom Line
Gohir v. Nawaz is a cautionary tale that will resonate with any real estate lawyer who has watched a client transfer a large sum to a friend or family member to help with a property purchase. Without proper documentation, such as a mortgage, a co-ownership agreement, a written loan, a generous friend might be left with an unsecured debt and a long road through the courts to collect it.
The case is also a reminder that the title tells the story. If your client’s name is not on title and they have no registered interest, they are an unsecured creditor. That conversation is worth having with every client before the transfer of funds, not after.
