The Ontario Superior Court’s recent decision in De Miranda et al. v. James Vincent King (2025 ONSC 4624) serves as an important reminder to real estate practitioners about the evidentiary requirements needed to resolve beneficial ownership disputes on summary judgment. This case involved a family dispute over a Hamilton property and illustrates why insufficient documentation and hearsay evidence can derail even seemingly straightforward claims.
The Background
In 2007, Anne Margaret King and her daughter-in-law Cristina Maria De Miranda purchased a property in Hamilton for $335,000, taking title as joint tenants. Anne contributed $110,000 toward the purchase price, while Cristina’s portion was financed through a mortgage. The plaintiffs, Cristina and her husband Paul (Anne’s son), paid the property’s maintenance, renovation, and ongoing expenses. On the other hand, Anne, who resided at the property, had no financial obligations other than her personal utilities and daily living expenses.
The arrangement continued until 2017, when Anne moved into a London condominium purchased by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then began renting out the Hamilton property and earning substantial income from it. In January 2022, Anne severed the joint tenancy. When she passed away in April 2023, her estate trustee (Paul’s brother James) sought partition and sale of the Hamilton property.
The plaintiffs responded by claiming they were the beneficial owners of Anne’s interest in the property, arguing that Anne held her legal interest in trust for them based on an alleged 2007 agreement.
The Alleged Agreement
The plaintiffs claimed they had reached an oral agreement with Anne in 2007 containing the following terms:
- Paul and Cristina would purchase a home for Anne to reside in
- Anne would contribute $110,000
- Paul and Cristina would pay all property-related expenses
- Anne would have no financial obligations beyond her personal utilities and living expenses
- If Anne became unable to live independently, Paul and Cristina would pay for her care
Additionally, the plaintiffs asserted that although not part of the original agreement, all parties agreed before closing that Anne would be registered on title as a joint tenant with Cristina but would hold her interest in trust for the plaintiffs as beneficial owners.
Why Summary Judgment Failed
Justice Bordin dismissed both parties’ summary judgment motions, finding genuine issues requiring a trial. The decision identifies several critical evidentiary problems that real estate lawyers should note:
- Inadequate Evidence of Agreement Formation
The limited evidence about the alleged 2007 agreement came from Cristina’s affidavit, despite the fact that she did not participate in the discussions with Anne. Paul’s affidavit merely adopted Cristina’s evidence without providing independent testimony. At discovery, Paul’s evidence was “vague and equivocal” about when discussions occurred and what terms were agreed upon.
- Problematic Hearsay Evidence
Given Anne’s death, much of the evidence about what she said or understood constituted hearsay. The court noted that this hearsay was “particularly problematic” since the credibility of the parties was a central issue in the case. The plaintiffs failed to establish either a traditional hearsay exception or sufficient reliability under the principled approach.
- Lack of Corroborating Documentation
Despite having a lawyer handle the property purchase, there was no written evidence of the alleged trust arrangement. The court found it significant that the parties documented a subsequent $44,000 loan from Anne to the plaintiffs in 2008, yet failed to similarly document the alleged 2007 trust agreement which concerned a much larger sum. No evidence was tendered from the closing lawyer to confirm Anne’s understanding of the trust arrangement.
- Insufficient Financial Evidence
The court found insufficient evidence about the financial details necessary to support the plaintiffs’ claims, particularly their unjust enrichment argument. Details about the precise mortgage amount, who lived at the property, and the full scope of the financial dealings were missing from the record.
- Hearsay Expert Report
The plaintiffs tendered an expert report that was attached to Cristina’s affidavit rather than supported by the expert’s own affidavit, rendering it hearsay. Some facts in the report were also not supported by the affidavit evidence.
Practical Takeaways for Real Estate Lawyers
This case offers several important lessons:
Document Everything: When clients who are not spouses enter into arrangements involving property ownership in joint tenancy, insist on written documentation. Had the alleged trust been properly documented in 2007, this entire dispute might have been avoided.
Consider Future Evidentiary Needs: On summary judgment motions, hearsay evidence becomes particularly problematic when key witnesses are deceased. Contemporaneous written documentation can overcome these challenges.
Ensure Proper Affidavit Evidence: Expert reports must be properly supported by the expert’s own affidavit. Evidence about agreements should come from the parties who actually negotiated them, not third parties with indirect knowledge.
Financial Details Matter: In beneficial ownership disputes, comprehensive financial evidence about contributions, payments, and ongoing expenses is essential. General assertions without supporting documentation will be insufficient.
The High Bar for Summary Judgment: The Hryniak framework requires that the court be confident it can fairly resolve the dispute. Where credibility is central and key evidence is unavailable (such as a deceased party’s testimony), summary judgment will rarely be appropriate.
Conclusion
The De Miranda decision reinforces that real estate disputes involving beneficial ownership, resulting trusts, and unjust enrichment typically require robust documentary evidence and detailed testimony to succeed on summary judgment. When advising transactional clients on property purchases involving family members or non-standard ownership arrangements, real estate lawyers should ensure comprehensive written documentation to avoid the evidentiary challenges that proved fatal to the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion in this case.
