Article content continued

The breakdown occurred when the parents told the daughter that they had a large tax bill to pay because of RRSP withdrawals, that they wished to pay down their mortgage and therefore needed to sell the Colwood home.

The mom testified that when her daughter told her that she didn’t want the home sold and insisted that it was her house, she was shocked, did not understand and thought something was wrong.

The parents to that point had been supportive of both the daughter and their son, including providing each child with a vehicle, helping with the costs of education, making various other gifts to them, covering the cost of the daughter’s elective surgery and advancing a loan to the son to purchase a home they owned in Port Hardy, a loan which he repaid.

In his ruling in the case, the judge noted that as is all too often the case, the family arrangements dealing with the home lacked documentation, making the credibility of the family members a significant factor.

“That is complicated by the family breakdown and the resulting anger, frustration and disappointment that colours the parties’ evidence.”

The daughter, 37, testified that her family was dysfunctional and her relationship with her brother broken down. She claimed the money was a gift to her.

The judge noted that while the land title documents, property tax bills and the defendants’ role in dealing with tenants in the home and the day-to-day care of the property were consistent with her assertion of ownership, such evidence was also consistent with the couple’s evidence and their stated reasons for the purchase.