Family Farm, Family Fallout: Ontario Court Untangles a 30-Year Trust Dispute

The Ontario Superior Court's decision in Laberge Gareau v. Laberge Gareau, 2026 ONSC 4669 is a cautionary tale about family farms, informal succession planning, and the legal consequences of putting property in a child's name without fully understanding the legal effect.  

The case involved an 83-year-old mother, Michele Jeanne Laberge Gareau, and her daughters, Joanne Marie Laberge Gareau and Jeanne Lucy Laberge Gareau. The dispute centred on a cattle farm operation in Verner, Ontario, consisting of two adjoining properties.  

Michele purchased the first property in 1979 and put title in her name. In 1996, she purchased the second adjoining property, which was immediately adjacent to the first property. Notably, title to that second property was registered "in trust" for Joanne and Jeanne, who were only 12 and 10 years old at the time.  

For decades, everyone operated the farm together. Joanne, in particular, devoted substantial labour to the farming operation, helping with: 

• Calving and livestock care 

• Hay production 

• Fence installation and maintenance 

• Construction projects 

• General farm operations 

The family relationship eventually deteriorated, leading to litigation in 2019, to determine who actually owned the second property.  

The Core Question: Who Really Owned the Property? 

The central legal issue was whether Michele had actually given the beneficial ownership of the second property to her daughters when it was purchased in 1996.  

Michele argued she never intended to gift the property. Rather, she believed she remained the beneficial owner and that the trust arrangement was simply a mechanism related to land planning and title concerns.  

Michele: 

• Paid the down payment 

• Paid the mortgage 

• Paid the taxes 

• Maintained the property 

• Collected rental and farming income from the land 

• Continued treating the property as part of her farming operation for nearly 30 years. 

Michele relied on her lawyer’s reporting letter when she purchased the second property, confirming she was the beneficial owner, and title was put into trust to deal with possible title issues. 

Joanne argued her mother knew exactly what she was doing when she placed the property in trust for the children and that the land had effectively been gifted.  

The Court concluded that Michele did not intend to transfer beneficial ownership to her daughters when the property was purchased. The court found that the presumption of advancement, which generally assumes a gift from a parent to a minor child, had been rebutted by the evidence. Michelle was the sole beneficial owner of the second property 

Although Joanne was unsuccessful with her claim to ownership, the Court acknowledged her substantial contributions to the farm over many years, including labour and financial contributions toward equipment and farm operations. The Court noted that children often help out parents, perhaps more so in a farming family, and that alone will not support a claim for damages for unjust enrichment. Only when the contributions become “unjust” can a claim be advanced.   

The Court noted it should be a “high bar” before a child can claim unjust enrichment for their contributions to the parent. Here, the Court was satisfied that Michele benefited from Joanne's work because it reduced the need to hire labour and assisted with maintaining and operating the farm, and it would be unjust for Joanne not to be compensated. Michelle was ordered to pay Joanne $170,881.16 in damages for unjust enrichment, plus prejudgment interest (net of benefits Joanne received like staying rent-free).  

Joanne also argued that her mother repeatedly promised that "the farm would be yours someday" and that she relied on those representations.  

The court was not persuaded as there was no clear, enforceable promise by mother to transfer the property to her. 

Key Takeaways

1. Informal succession plans can create costly disputes 

Statements like "this will all be yours someday" may reflect family intentions, but they rarely provide sufficient legal certainty. Proper succession planning and written agreements matter.  

2. Trust arrangements should be fully documented 

The case demonstrates the risk of relying on incomplete explanations or failing to execute supporting trust documents. The court noted that a contemplated trust agreement was never completed.  

3. Sweat equity can be compensated 

Even where ownership claims fail, substantial unpaid labour on a family farm can give rise to a successful unjust enrichment claim.  

4. Courts will examine real intentions, not just title 

A name on title is important, but it is not always determinative. Courts will look closely at the transferor's actual intention when property is placed in a child's name.  

Final Result 

The court declared that Michele is the sole beneficial owner of the remaining farm property, while ordering her to pay Joanne $170,881.16 for unjust enrichment arising from years of labour and contributions to the farm.  

For farm families, the case serves as a powerful reminder that succession planning should be documented carefully and clearly. Family expectations may endure for decades, but when relationships break down, courts must rely on evidence, not assumptions. 

If you have questions about estate litigation, succession planning, trusts, or disputes involving family property, please reach out to a member of our Estate Litigation Group.