Can a Parent Give One Child $1.7 Million Before Death? What an Ontario Court of Appeal Decision Means

Estate Litigation | October 13, 2026 | Woodstone Law

An Ontario mother left a will dividing her estate between her two adult children. But before she died, she transferred more than $1.7 million to her daughter. Her son challenged the transfers, arguing that the money should be returned to the estate.

In Buffa v. Giacomelli, 2026 ONCA 566, released August 6, 2026, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The decision is a useful reminder that an inheritance dispute may turn not only on what a will says, but also on what a parent intended when transferring money during their lifetime.

The key point: A substantial transfer to one adult child is not automatically invalid because another child receives less. But neither does putting money into a joint account automatically prove that the money was a gift. The evidence of intention, the circumstances of the transfer, and any improper pressure matter.

What happened in Buffa v. Giacomelli?

Giuliana Buffa's 2018 will provided that, if her husband died before her, 45% of her estate would go to her son and 55% to her daughter. After her husband's death in 2019, her relationship with her son deteriorated, while she remained close to her daughter.

In 2020, Giuliana signed letters expressing her intention to give her daughter the proceeds of investment accounts and the sale of her condominium. Funds were transferred into joint accounts held with her daughter. By the time Giuliana died in October 2023, more than $1.7 million that had originated from her assets had been transferred or passed outside the estate (Buffa, paras. 8–22).

Her son asked the court to set the transfers aside. He alleged undue influence and argued that the daughter held the money for the estate under a resulting trust rather than owning it as a gift.

The application judge rejected those claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found no reversible error and dismissed the son's appeal. The Court accepted the lower court's findings that Giuliana had made her financial decisions freely and deliberately and that the evidence established an intention to give the funds to her daughter (Buffa, paras. 2–6, 26–28, 61).

This was a decision about lifetime gifts and ownership of transferred assets, not a ruling that the 2018 will itself was invalid.

Does a will guarantee that each beneficiary will receive the stated percentage of all assets?

No. A will generally governs property that forms part of the deceased person's estate. Property validly given away during life may no longer belong to the person at death.

That distinction was central in Buffa. The will's 45/55 division applied to the estate, but the disputed transfers had already moved substantial assets outside it. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that those transfers were gifts.

That does not mean every attempt to move assets outside an estate will succeed. Questions may arise about the transferor's capacity, intention, undue influence, legal ownership and other obligations. A beneficiary's expectation under a will is not, by itself, proof that an earlier transfer was improper.

If a parent adds an adult child to a joint bank account, does the money belong to that child?

Not necessarily.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, explains that when a parent gratuitously transfers property into joint ownership with an adult child, the presumption of resulting trust generally applies. In simplified terms, the adult child must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the parent actually intended a gift rather than merely arranging help with banking or administration (Pecore, paras. 24–25, 36–41, 43–44; Buffa, para. 41).

The evidence can include documents created when the accounts were opened, written instructions, how the funds were used, and other reliable evidence of the parent's intentions. Joint legal title and the beneficial right to keep the money are not always the same thing (Pecore, paras. 4, 55–69).

In Buffa, written gift letters, joint-account arrangements and other documentation supported the finding that Giuliana intended the transfers to benefit her daughter personally. The Court of Appeal also accepted that the history of the family relationships could be considered as part of the overall evidence. A possible reason for making a gift is not a substitute for proof of an actual intention to make one (Buffa, paras. 43–48).

What counts as undue influence in an Ontario estate dispute?

Undue influence is not established simply because one child was closer to a parent, helped with finances, or received more money.

For a lifetime gift, the court may consider whether the relationship involved a potential for domination such that a presumption of undue influence arises. If the presumption applies, the recipient must show, on a balance of probabilities, that the gift resulted from the donor's full, free and informed decision. The facts can also support a claim of actual undue influence (Buffa, paras. 30–32).

In Buffa, the application judge found that the daughter was not in a position to dominate her mother's will and that the gifts were made freely and voluntarily. The Court of Appeal concluded that those findings were sufficient to defeat the undue-influence challenge, even if a presumption had arisen (Buffa, paras. 34–40).

Every case depends on its evidence. Isolation, pressure, vulnerability, changes in decision-making ability, control of communications or unexplained transfers may warrant investigation, but none of those factors alone predetermines the result.

Why do written records matter so much after someone dies?

A person cannot later explain a transfer after their death. That makes contemporaneous documents particularly important.

Section 13 of Ontario's Evidence Act addresses corroboration in certain proceedings involving deceased persons. An interested party generally cannot obtain a decision based solely on their own uncorroborated evidence about matters occurring before the death.

In Buffa, the Court of Appeal considered evidence beyond the daughter's account, including the gift letters and financial arrangements. The court explained that the material factual claim—not every individual detail of testimony—must be corroborated (Buffa, paras. 42, 47–48 and footnote 4).

For families planning gifts, careful documentation can reduce ambiguity. For families questioning a transfer, bank records, instructions, correspondence and the timeline of events may be more useful than speculation about motives.

What if the parent signed a power of attorney?

A power of attorney for property may allow an attorney to manage another person's finances, but it does not by itself answer whether a particular transfer was an authorized gift or who beneficially owns the money.

In Buffa, the daughter had been named as an alternate attorney for property and was involved in carrying out transfers. The court nevertheless examined the mother's intention and freedom of choice. The result should not be read as blanket permission for attorneys for property to transfer a person's assets to themselves. A separate appeal argument that the attorney was bound to administer the property according to the will was not pursued and was treated as abandoned (Buffa, paras. 8, 35, 58 and footnote 3).

Where an attorney has participated in a disputed transfer, legal advice should address the timing, source of authority, supporting instructions, fiduciary obligations and any conflicts of interest.

Can an adult child challenge money transferred before a parent's death?

Potentially. The right claim and remedy depend on the circumstances. A dispute over a lifetime gift is different from challenging the validity of a will, requesting estate accounts, or seeking support as a dependant.

Before taking legal action, it is helpful to identify:

• What was transferred: cash, joint-account funds, investments, registered accounts or other property.

• When it happened: the date of any gift letter, account change, deposit, withdrawal or beneficiary designation.

• Who controlled the process: the parent, an attorney for property, a bank employee or another person.

• What evidence exists: bank records, signed instructions, correspondence, estate documents and witnesses with relevant knowledge.

• What relief is sought: an accounting, a declaration of beneficial ownership, repayment to the estate or another appropriate remedy.

Do not assume that the same deadline applies to every estate claim. Preserve documents promptly and obtain advice before assets are distributed or evidence becomes harder to obtain.

What does this decision mean for Ontario families?

Buffa v. Giacomelli does not create a rule that parents must treat their adult children equally. Nor does it mean that a signed gift letter makes every transfer immune from challenge.

It shows why intention and independent evidence matter. A valid lifetime gift can substantially change what remains to be distributed under a will. At the same time, the law provides ways to examine whether an apparent gift was truly intended and freely made.

For someone making an estate plan, the practical lesson is to make the intended treatment of joint accounts and major gifts clear, with appropriate legal advice. For someone concerned about a parent's transfers, the practical lesson is to investigate the documents and circumstances before deciding whether there is a sustainable legal claim.

Speak With Woodstone Law About an Ontario Estate Dispute

Woodstone Law assists clients with estate litigation, contested inheritances, executor concerns, wills and estate planning. Our team serves clients in Toronto, North York, Barrie, Newmarket and surrounding Ontario communities, with virtual consultations available. Our Newmarket office opens October 30, 2026.

If you are concerned about a significant gift, joint account or disputed inheritance, learn about our estate litigation services, review our Ontario estate disputes guide, or request a consultation.

This article provides general Ontario legal information, not legal advice. The outcome of an estate dispute depends on the evidence, the legal issues raised and the applicable law. Reading this article does not establish a lawyer-client relationship.

Legal sources

• Buffa v. Giacomelli, 2026 ONCA 566 — official Court of Appeal judgment, August 6, 2026; particularly paras. 8–28, 30–48, 53–61 and footnotes 3–4. CanLII citation.

• Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17 — official Supreme Court judgment, particularly paras. 24–25, 36–44 and 55–69. CanLII citation.

• Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 13; reproduced and applied in Buffa, para. 47 and footnote 4.