Hugginson v. Hugginson: Court Rules $400,000 Gift Invalid Due to Lack of Intent and Delivery

Hugginson v. Hugginson: Court Rules $400,000 Gift Invalid Due to Lack of Intent and Delivery

Case: Hugginson v. Hugginson, 2025 ONSC 1797

On March 20, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice delivered its decision in Hugginson v. Hugginson, 2025 ONSC 1797 (CanLII), a case that delves into the complexities of inter vivos gifts—gifts made during a donor’s lifetime—and the legal requirements to validate them. This case pitted two stepdaughters of the deceased, Glenn Poole, against each other in a dispute over a $400,000 gift. Below, we outline the facts, the legal questions, the applicable law, the court’s conclusion, and the key lessons learned.

The Facts

The applicant, Heather Ann Hugginson, sought to invalidate a $400,000 gift allegedly made by her stepfather, Glenn Poole, to her sister, Sandra Hugginson, who also served as the estate trustee of Glenn’s estate. The dispute arose after Glenn’s death on December 26, 2022, when Sandra transferred $400,000 from Glenn’s investment accounts into her own, claiming it was a completed inter vivos gift.

Glenn, a resident of a long-term care facility due to mobility issues, had limited ability to manage his affairs directly. Sandra, as his Attorney for Property and estate trustee, facilitated interactions with his investment advisor, Tracey Greenwood of IG Wealth Management. In September 2022, Glenn expressed a desire to gift Sandra money and met with Tracey to discuss it, though no specific amount or instructions were confirmed. A subsequent meeting with his lawyer in November 2022 resulted in a “Gift Letter” signed by Glenn on November 30, stating he might leave Sandra a gift “while I am alive” as a thank-you for her support. However, the letter lacked specificity about the amount or firm intent.

Despite these steps, no funds were transferred before Glenn’s death. After his passing, IG Wealth facilitated the $400,000 transfer to Sandra in July 2023, contingent on her signing a Full and Final Release. Heather challenged this, arguing the gift was invalid and the money belonged to the estate.

The Legal Questions

The court addressed three key issues:

1. Was the $400,000 a valid inter vivos gift from Glenn to Sandra?
2. If the gift was incomplete during Glenn’s lifetime, did Sandra’s role as estate trustee perfect it after his death?
3. What weight should be given to Sandra’s evidence about Glenn’s intentions and IG Wealth’s actions?

The Law

An inter vivos gift requires three elements to be valid, as established in McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533:

• Intention: The donor must have a clear, specific intent to make the gift.
• Delivery: The gift must be transferred or constructively delivered, with the donor relinquishing control.
• Acceptance: The donee must accept the gift.

The burden lies on the recipient (Sandra) to prove these elements with “clear, convincing, and cogent evidence” (Walker v. Faarsijani, 2021 ONSC 5571). The court also considered the Strong v. Bird rule, which can perfect an imperfect gift if the donor’s intent persisted until death and the donee becomes the executor, though this applies narrowly to specific property or debt forgiveness (Morton v. Brighouse, 1927 SCC).

Additionally, under section 13 of Ontario’s Evidence Act, statements about a deceased person’s intent must be corroborated by independent evidence, and business records (like Tracey’s notes) must meet strict admissibility standards under section 35.

The Court’s Analysis and Conclusion

Issue 1: No Valid Inter Vivos Gift

• Intent: The court found Sandra failed to prove Glenn’s specific intent. The Gift Letter’s language—“I may also leave you a gift”—was conditional and vague, lacking confirmation of amount or finality. Tracey’s notes and the IG Wealth letter (marked “Without Prejudice”) offered no clarity, and Sandra admitted in cross-examination she didn’t know Glenn’s true intentions.
• Delivery: No transfer occurred before Glenn’s death, and he retained control over the funds, failing to authorize IG Wealth explicitly. An incomplete gift is merely an intention, not a gift (Kavanagh v. Lajoie, 2014 ONCA 187).

Issue 2: Strong v. Bird Inapplicable

• Sandra argued that her role as estate trustee perfected the gift under Strong v. Bird. The court rejected this, noting the rule requires a clear, continuous intent to gift specific property—neither of which Sandra proved. Unlike Rennick v. Rennick (debt forgiveness), this case involved a cash gift, and the Supreme Court in Morton v. Brighouse limited the rule’s expansion.

Issue 3: Limited Weight to Evidence

• Sandra’s evidence, including Tracey’s notes and the IG Wealth letter, was given little weight. Under the Evidence Act, it lacked independent corroboration and included inadmissible opinions or hearsay, failing business record standards.

Conclusion: The court declared the $400,000 transfer invalid and ordered Sandra to return it to the estate, emphasizing the high evidentiary threshold for inter vivos gifts.

Lessons Learned

1. Clarity of Intent is Paramount: Vague or conditional statements (e.g., “I may give”) won’t suffice. Donors must explicitly document their intent, ideally with witnesses or legal advice, to avoid disputes.
2. Delivery Must Be Complete: A gift isn’t valid until the donor fully relinquishes control. Here, Glenn’s failure to transfer the funds or provide clear instructions doomed the gift.
3. Role of Estate Trustee Doesn’t Guarantee Perfection: The Strong v. Bird rule is narrow—don’t assume executor status automatically validates an incomplete gift without solid proof of intent.
4. Evidence Matters: Courts demand robust, corroborated evidence, especially when the donor can’t speak for themselves. Relying on hearsay or self-serving documents risks failure.
5. Plan Ahead: Glenn’s declining health and reliance on intermediaries highlight the need for proactive estate planning to ensure wishes are executed as intended.

This case serves as a cautionary tale for families and estate planners alike. Inter vivos gifts, while a generous gesture, require meticulous execution to withstand legal scrutiny. For Sandra, the $400,000 windfall unraveled due to evidentiary gaps; for Heather, persistence paid off in preserving the estate’s integrity. As always, clear communication and documentation remain the bedrock of any gift-giving endeavor.