Counsel for the appellant argues that in finding that the husband had made a gift to his wife, the trial judge, although not saying so in terms, must by implication be taken to have invoked the well-known rule of the presumption of advancement. That rule is “concisely and accurately stated” per Cartwright J. (later C.J.C.) in Jackman v. Jackman , 1959 CanLII 87 (SCC), [1959] S.C.R. 702 at 712, 19 D.L.R. (2d) 317) in 19 Hals. (3d) 832, para. 1360: “Where a husband purchases property or makes an investment in the name of his wife, a gift to her is presumed in the absence of evidence of an intention to the contrary”.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.