A woman knew what she was doing when she gifted about $1.7 million to one of her children before she died, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled — rejecting an effort from her other child who sought the return of assets to the estate that was shared between her kids.
According to the court’s decision, before she died in 2023, Giuliana Buffa gifted her investments — including her RRIF, TFSA and an investment account at TD — along with the proceeds from the sale of her condo to her daughter Laura Giacomelli.
After she died, her son Alexander Buffa asked the Superior Court of Justice to set aside the transfers, and applied to have the assets included in the estate, which was to be split between the siblings (45% for him, 55% to his sister).
Among other things, he argued that the transfers were made as the result of undue influence exerted by his sister over their mother, and that the gifts were “gratuitous” and should instead be part of the estate.
In a 2025 decision, the court rejected that application, ruling that the transfers were valid gifts.
According to the court, in May 2020, Buffa signed a couple of gift letters directing for the investment accounts to be liquidated and deposited into joint bank accounts held with her daughter, and directing that the proceeds of the sale of her condo also be given to her.
When the investment accounts were ultimately liquidated in 2021 they contained about $866,000. The proceeds from the condo amounted to about $875,000.
On appeal, Buffa argued that the lower court judge erred by failing to properly consider whether the gifts were made as a result of undue influence being exerted over his mother, and that the judge erred by conflating a motive for the gifts — his mother’s closer relationship with his sister — with a finding that she intended to make the gifts.
He also argued that the court failed to consider whether his mother’s intentions changed between the time she signed the gift letters and the time the transfers were made — particularly after she began showing signs of dementia in late 2021.
The appeal court has now rejected these arguments too.
“The application judge was entitled to consider evidence relating to the quality of the relationships that Giuliana had with her children as one of several facts that led him to conclude that the transfers to the respondent were intended as gifts. He did not conflate motive with intention,” the appeal court said.
It also found that the judge didn’t err in finding that the gifts were given freely, and that there was no evidence of the daughter exerting undue influence over their mother.
“These findings were available to the application judge on the record,” the appeal court said.
The court also rejected the argument that the transfer of the proceeds from the sale of the condo took place after his mother started to show signs of dementia, and that the court failed to consider whether her intentions were the same as when she originally signed the gift letters.
The court said that there’s no evidence that Buffa’s intentions changed between the time she signed the letters in 2020 and when the actual transfers took place.
“Although the appellant is correct that a donor’s intention to make a gift must continue to the time of delivery, given that there is no change in capacity, nothing prevented an inference being drawn that the clear statement of intention to make the gift in May 2020 continued through the time of delivery,” the appeal court said in its decision.
In this case, the delivery of the gift took place in early 2021, before Buffa started to show signs of dementia, the court concluded.
“Delivery of a gift occurs when the donor divests himself or herself of all power and control over the property and transfers it to the donee,” the court said. In this case, “It was the deposit of proceeds of the condominium sale into the joint account that constituted delivery of the gifted property,” it noted.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, and ordered $20,000 in costs to the daughter.