Article content continued

After they broke up, they met to exchange some belongings. At trial, P.S. claimed that H.R. gave him back her engagement ring, and that he said, “What am I going to do with this?” and asked her to take it back to the jewelry store to see if he could get his money back and that she agreed to do so.

But H.R. claimed that she had offered to give the ring back to P.S., but that he said he didn’t want it and after suggesting she take it back to the store, he agreed that he was giving it to her and that it was “just our little secret.”

Based on all of the circumstances I conclude that it is not obvious that the gift carried with it the implied term that it was intended to be revocable if the marriage did not take place

In his ruling on the case, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Murray Blok said he accepted that both parties were doing their best to be truthful, but that he found H.R.’s version of events more likely to be true and that it revealed P.S.’s intention to give the ring as an “absolute” gift.

“I simply do not accept that Ms. R would have entertained doing the favour for Mr. S that he asserts he asked her to do, that of taking the ring back to the jewelry store on his behalf to see if she could get anything for it, let alone that she would have actually agreed to do it,” said Blok.

“Given the nature of the event that ended the relationship and the highly negative view that Ms. R now had of Mr. S, the idea that she would have willingly taken on this favour on Mr. S’s behalf, which would necessarily involve Ms. R having further dealings with him, is very difficult to accept.”

P.S. claimed that the mortgage and line-of-credit payments, which were made in early November 2013, were gifts given in contemplation of marriage and that because the marriage didn’t happen, they should be returned.

H.R. argued that the gifts were “absolute” gifts and that there were no conditions attached. The judge agreed with her.

“Based on all of the circumstances I conclude that it is not obvious that the gift carried with it the implied term that it was intended to be revocable if the marriage did not take place.”

• Email: kfraser@postmedia.com | Twitter: keithrfraser