|
Trusts - Illegality. Singh v. Persaud
In Singh v. Persaud (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against an order vesting title to real estate in the respondent.
Here the court considers a contractual (here a trust deed) ex turpi causa (illegality) argument:[48] Finally with respect to these grounds of appeal, the appellant submits that the trial judge made a reviewable error in her analysis of the alleged unenforceability of the Acknowledgement of Trust and Statutory Declaration on the basis of the doctrine of illegality or ex turpi causa.
[49] The position of the appellant is that the respondent was, at the time the property was purchased, receiving Ontario Works benefits and she had failed to disclose her assets and income being earned at the time to Ontario Works. The appellant submits that, as a result, the Acknowledgement of Trust and Statutory Declaration should be declared unenforceable and set aside, or in the alternative the appellant should be entitled to a ten percent beneficial interest in the property (i.e., ten percent of the current value).
[50] The trial judge fully considered the submissions and evidence and expressly rejected the appellant’s allegations in this regard. She made findings with respect to the period of time in which the respondent received Ontario Works benefits and found that at the time of the purchase of the home in 2007, the respondent had only recently learned that the funds she had brought from Guyana were being released to her by her ex-boyfriend and that she did not have to return them. Previously, she believed that the funds were not hers to use and may have to be returned. Accordingly, the trial judge did not find evidentiary support in the record for the appellant’s factual allegations of illegality. Those findings were open to the trial judge on the record, and are entitled to deference.
[51] The trial judge further found that the doctrine of ex turpi causa did not render the trust agreement illegal and unenforceable. As stated in the reasons, she found that “the parties entered into a simple agreement whereby the [appellant] would hold title to the property in trust for the [respondent]. This agreement was not illegal per se nor was there any evidence that the parties entered into the agreement with the object of committing an illegal act.” In so finding, the trial judge made no reviewable error: see Scott v. Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc., 2024 SCC 32, 497 D.L.R. (4th) 1, at para. 111.
|
