McNamee v. McNamee,

JurisdictionOntario
JudgeSharpe, Blair and Rouleau, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Citation(2011), 280 O.A.C. 372 (CA),2011 ONCA 533
Date01 February 2011

McNamee v. McNamee (2011), 280 O.A.C. 372 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.002

Connie McNamee (applicant/respondent in appeal) v. Clayton McNamee (respondent/appellant)

(C52000; 2011 ONCA 533)

Indexed As: McNamee v. McNamee

Ontario Court of Appeal

Sharpe, Blair and Rouleau, JJ.A.

July 26, 2011.

Summary:

The parties separated after 18.5 years of marriage. The husband's father had transferred common shares in the father's company to the husband in 2003 as a result of a corporate estate freeze undertaken by the father. The shares were valued at $418,200 as of the date of separation. At issue was whether the shares had been received by way of gift and were therefore exempt from inclusion in his net family property (Family Law Act, s. 4(2)).

The Ontario Superior Court held that the shares were not a gift and were therefore subject to equalization. The trial judge did not deal with the wife's argument that she was entitled to a beneficial ownership interest in the shares by way of unjust enrichment and constructive trust. The husband appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The shares were a gift and therefore not subject to equalization on that basis. The court held that a new trial was warranted to deal with the unjust enrichment and constructive trust issue.

Family Law - Topic 629.3

Husband and wife - Marital property - Marital property legislation - Availability of constructive trust - A trial judge found that shares that a husband received from his father were not a gift and therefore were not exempt from inclusion in his net family property (Family Law Act, s. 4(2)) - The trial judge found that it was not necessary to assess the wife's claim for a constructive trust - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the shares were a gift - However, the court stated that the trial judge should have determined claims of ownership, including beneficial ownership, of all assets prior to dealing with the net equalization payment exclusions under s. 4(2) - A claim of ownership was distinct from a claim for a share in property value - The constructive trust claim addressed the former and the equalization regime of the Family Law Act covered only the latter - Therefore, a court must first apply trust principles to determine ownership before turning to the exclusions listed in s. 4(2) - This was supported by the language of s. 4(2) - A spouse could not exclude property that was beneficially owned by someone else - See paragraphs 54 to 65.

Family Law - Topic 637

Husband and wife - Marital property - Constructive trusts - [See Family Law - Topic 629.3].

Family Law - Topic 880.3

Husband and wife - Marital property - Distribution orders - Exempt acquisitions - Gift - The parties separated after 18.5 years of marriage - The husband's father had transferred common shares in the father's company to the husband in 2003 as a result of a corporate estate freeze undertaken by the father - The estate freeze was unusual from the norm in that the father retained full control by ensuring that his preference shares be voting shares which entitled him to take unlimited dividends from the company at any time, thus enabling him to denude the company of any equity or retained earnings in the future - At issue was whether the shares had been received by way of gift, and were therefore exempt from inclusion in his net family property (Family Law Act, s. 4(2)) - The trial judge held that the shares were not a gift - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the husband's appeal - The shares were a gift - The transfer was gratuitous - The intention to transfer the shares had a perfectly legitimate legal objective (to underpin the corporate restructuring in the form of an estate freeze) - The court disagreed that for a gift to be valid the donor's intention could only be motivated by altruism - A transfer of property by way of gift could equally be motivated by commercial purposes provided the transfer was gratuitous - The husband accepted the gift - The fact that the father could affect the shares' value at any given time and there were "strings attached" to the gift did not invalidate the gift - See paragraphs 21 to 53.

Cases Noticed:

Birce v. Birce (2001), 150 O.A.C. 319; 56 O.R.(3d) 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980; 150 N.R. 1; 23 B.C.A.C. 81; 39 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 23].

Cochrane v. Moore (1890), 25 Q.B.D. 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Traversy v. Glover, [2006] O.T.C. Uned. 754; 30 R.F.L.(6th) 372 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

Wilson v. Hicks (1911), 23 O.L.R. 496 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 1].

Rawluk v. Rawluk, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 70; 103 N.R. 321; 38 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 57].

Hamilton v. Hamilton (1996), 92 O.A.C. 103 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Roseneck v. Gowling (2002), 167 O.A.C. 203; 62 O.R.(3d) 789 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Yates v. University College, London (1875), L.R. 7 H.L. 438, refd to. [para. 69].

Macklem and Niagara Falls Park Commissioners, Re (1887), 14 O.A.R. 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, sect. 4(2) [para. 21].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mossman, Mary Jane, and Flanagan, William F., Property Law: Cases and Commentary (2nd Ed. 2004), pp. 439 [para. 23]; 441 [para. 24].

Ziff, Bruce H., Principles of Property Law (5th Ed. 2010), p. 157 [para. 24].

Counsel:

H. Hunter Phillips and James N. Eastwood, for the appellant;

Philip W. Augustine, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 1, 2011, before Sharpe, Blair and Rouleau, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Blair and Rouleau, JJ.A., delivered the following decision for the Court of Appeal on July 26, 2011.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
106 practice notes
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 3 - 7, 2023)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 12, 2023
    ...2023 ONCA 323, Whiten v. Pilot Insurance, 2002 SCC 18, R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, R. v. Cunningham, 2023 ONCA 36, McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533, Martin v. Sansome, 2014 ONCA 14, Halliwell v. Halliwell, 2017 ONCA 349, Hon. Allen M. Linden, et al., Canadian Tort Law, 10th ed. (Toronto: ......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 27 ' October 1)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 5, 2021
    ...2021 ONCA 467, Garcia v. Tahoe Resources Inc., 2017 BCCA 39, Hurst v. Société Nationale de L'Amiante, 2008 ONCA 573, McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533, Martin v. Sansome, 2014 ONCA 14 Wakeling v. Desjardins General Insurance, 2021 ONCA 672 Keywords: Torts, Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Breach o......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 14-18, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • February 22, 2022
    ...R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15, s 4, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 21.01(1)(a) and (3), McConnell v. Huxtable, 2014 ONCA 86, McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533, Rawluk v. Rawluk, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 70 Feltz Design Build Ltd. v. Larson, 2022 ONCA 150 Keywords: Contracts, Construction, Civil Procedure, S......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 31 ' June 4)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • June 10, 2021
    ...O. Reg. 114/99, Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, Martin v. Sansome, 2014 ONCA 14, McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533, Punzo v. Punzo, 2016 ONCA 957, Mason v. Mason, 2016 ONCA 725, Decaen v. Decaen, 2013 ONCA 218, Gray v. ICBC, 2010 BCCA 459 Paletta Interna......
  • Get Started for Free
85 cases
  • V.J.F. v. S.K.W.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • April 28, 2016
    ...which the donor retained no interest and expected no remuneration: see Peter v. Beblow [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980 at 991-2; McNamee v. McNamee 2011 ONCA 533 at para. 23. It need hardly be added that without more, a gift is not revocable by the donor: see Berdette v. Berdette (1991) 3 O.R.(3d) 513 ......
  • C.L.M. v. M.J.S.,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • May 15, 2017
    ...which the donor retained no interest and expected no remuneration: see Peter v. Beblow [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980 at 991-2; McNamee v. McNamee 2011 ONCA 533 at para. 23. It need hardly be added that without more, a gift is not revocable by the donor: see Berdette v. Berdette (1991) 3 O.R. (3d) 513......
  • Lau v Tao,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • January 14, 2025
    ...4(3) of the FLA provides that the onus of proving an exclusion under s. 4(2) rests on the person claiming it. 152 In McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533, the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the necessary constituents for a gift at paras. 23-25, as follows: [23] Although the term “gift” is n......
  • Korman v. Korman,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • May 7, 2015
    ...17, refd to. [para. 27]. Schwartz v. Schwartz et al. (2012), 290 O.A.C. 30; 2012 ONCA 239, refd to. [para. 27]. McNamee v. McNamee (2011), 280 O.A.C. 372; 106 O.R.(3d) 401; 2011 ONCA 533, refd to. [para. Nussbaum v. Nussbaum, [2004] O.T.C. 805; 9 R.F.L.(6th) 455 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. ......
  • Get Started for Free
14 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 27 ' October 1)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 5, 2021
    ...2021 ONCA 467, Garcia v. Tahoe Resources Inc., 2017 BCCA 39, Hurst v. Société Nationale de L'Amiante, 2008 ONCA 573, McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533, Martin v. Sansome, 2014 ONCA 14 Wakeling v. Desjardins General Insurance, 2021 ONCA 672 Keywords: Torts, Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Breach o......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 19-23)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 27, 2021
    ...2008 SCC 53, Bergen v. Bergen, 2013 BCCA 492, Christopher v. Freitas, 2019 ONCA 84, Chao v. Chao, 2017 ONCA 701, McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533, M. Gillen, L. Smith & D. W.M. Waters, Waters' Law of Trusts in Canada, 4th ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters Canada, 2012) Chandrasegaram v. Canadi......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 14-18, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • February 22, 2022
    ...R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15, s 4, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 21.01(1)(a) and (3), McConnell v. Huxtable, 2014 ONCA 86, McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533, Rawluk v. Rawluk, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 70 Feltz Design Build Ltd. v. Larson, 2022 ONCA 150 Keywords: Contracts, Construction, Civil Procedure, S......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 3 - 7, 2023)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 12, 2023
    ...2023 ONCA 323, Whiten v. Pilot Insurance, 2002 SCC 18, R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, R. v. Cunningham, 2023 ONCA 36, McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533, Martin v. Sansome, 2014 ONCA 14, Halliwell v. Halliwell, 2017 ONCA 349, Hon. Allen M. Linden, et al., Canadian Tort Law, 10th ed. (Toronto: ......
  • Get Started for Free
7 books & journal articles
  • Matrimonial Property Rights
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Canadian Family Law. Eighth Edition
    • August 3, 2020
    ...(1997), 32 RFL (4th) 232 (Ont CA), and James G McLeod’s extremely lucid and informative annotation at 233–37. And see McNamee v McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533; Korman v Korman, 2015 ONCA 578; Jackson v Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 72. See also Horch v Horch, 2017 MBCA 97; Batey v Batey, 2017 ONSC 6768; Chen ......
  • Matrimonial Property Rights
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Canadian Family Law - Ninth edition
    • July 25, 2022
    ...(1997), 32 RFL (4th) 232 (Ont CA), and James G McLeod’s extremely lucid and informative annotation at 233–37. And see McNamee v McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533; Korman v Korman, 2015 ONCA Jackson v Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 72; Lesko v Lesko, 2021 ONCA 369; Bakhsh v Merdad, 2022 ONCA 130. See also Horch v ......
  • Matrimonial Property Rights
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Canadian Family Law. Seventh Edition
    • August 29, 2017
    ...spouse or transfers property to the other spouse, the purchase or transfer gives rise to a presumption of And see McNamee v McNamee , 2011 ONCA 533; Korman v Korman , 2015 ONCA 578; Jackson v Mayerle , 2016 ONSC 72; Virc v Blair , 2016 ONSC 49. 18 2011 SCC 10. For a summary of those princip......
  • Matrimonial Property Rights
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Canadian Family Law. Fifth Edition
    • August 29, 2013
    ...from a parent as a gift so as to be excluded from annotation at 233–37. And see Mongroo v Mongroo , 2010 ONSC 7069; McNamee v McNamee , 2011 ONCA 533; Johnston v Adam , 2011 ONSC 3808. 21 Rawluk v Rawluk , ibid ; Parsalidis v Parsalidis , 2012 ONSC 2963. 22 See Chalmers v Copfer (1978), 7 R......
  • Get Started for Free