A recent decision out of the Ontario Superior Court, Khelawan v. Bonito, 2026 ONSC 2281, is a useful reminder that the choices we make at the closing table reverberate for decades, especially when family members pool money to buy a home. While the case was litigated as a trust dispute, its real lessons are for the solicitor who handles the purchase and the refinancing, not the one who ends up in the courtroom years later.

The Family, the Title, and the Falling-Out

The facts will be familiar to anyone whose practice touches multigenerational buyers. A mother and her adult children pooled their savings, a loan from a family friend, and sweat equity to buy a Scarborough home.

The initial property purchased by and for the family was 25 Brookshire. This was apparently motivated by the applicant and her sister, Nalinie Khelawan. It is not disputed that improvements were required and made generally by Dennis Khelawan, the applicant. This included his utilizing a credit card of his mother for certain expenses. Because Dennis and Nalinie had bad credit, title to the property was taken in the name of their mother, Sumintra Bonito and Anandi Khelawan, the other sister. In 2007, Nalinie was tragically killed and the strained family resources resulted in a decision to downsize the property.

After the original property was sold and a second one purchased at 600 Warden Avenue, the family executed a short agreement in 2008 confirming that the litigants had provided the purchase funds and that net sale proceeds would be paid to them, without specifying proportions.

Anandi came off title in 2013 and was replaced by the applicant, leaving the mother and son as joint tenants. When the mother moved into a nursing home and the relationships fractured, the son brought an application claiming up to 100 percent of the equity on resulting and constructive trust grounds.

Trust Analysis and the 65/35 Split

Justice Dow rejected the resulting trust argument on a narrow but important point. Because the applicant had been added to title in 2013, the classic resulting trust premise, that a contributor’s name is missing from title, simply no longer fit the facts. The court instead worked through an unjust enrichment and constructive trust analysis, citing Kerr v. Baranow, and Cairns v. O’Neil, for the proposition that proportionate contributions are determined by the reasoned exercise of judgment in light of all of the evidence, not a forensic audit of every receipt.

Faced with more than 900 pages of incomplete records from the applicant and over 400 pages from the respondent, the court split the equity 65 percent to the son and 35 percent to the mother, severed the joint tenancy, and directed a sale under the Partition Act if the parties could not agree within sixty days.

Practical Lessons for Transactional Counsel

1. The 2008 family agreement was almost useless because it failed to specify proportions. When papering a family contribution at closing, the document needs to do real work.           Identify each contributor, quantify each contribution such as the down payment, mortgage servicing, capital improvements, state the agreed beneficial interest as a percentage, and address what happens on death, sale, refinancing, or a co-owner moving out.
2. Do not default to joint tenancy when family members are on title for credit or convenience reasons. Where co-owners have unequal contributions, tenants in common is almost always the better default, paired with a written agreement allocating the percentage interests.
3. Warn clients at the front end that any name on title can, subject to limited equitable defences, force a sale under the Partition Act. Flag the risk in the retainer letter and in the closing reporting letter.
4. Encourage clients to open a dedicated joint account for carrying costs, to keep receipts for capital improvements separately from ordinary maintenance, and to revisit the co-ownership agreement whenever someone goes on or off title, including on a refinance.
5. Take seriously any change in title after closing. The 2013 transfer that put the son on title quietly destroyed the resulting trust theory the family might otherwise have relied on. When clients ask for a quick title change, slow them down long enough to update the underlying agreement.

Takeaways for Transactional Counsel

Transactional counsel cannot prevent every family from falling out, but they can ensure that when the fallout comes, the documents do the heavy lifting that Khelawan v. Bonito shows the courts will otherwise have to do by rough justice. A trust declaration or co-ownership agreement signed contemporaneously with closing is cheap insurance against exactly this kind of dispute.