The British Columbia Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Avtar Johal and his company, 672047 B.C. Ltd., regarding a $500,000 payment made to Johal’s son, Harvinder Johal, and daughter-in-law, Susan Little, to assist with the purchase of a home in North Vancouver. The court affirmed the trial judge’s finding that the payment was a gift, not a loan or investment.
The case revolved around funds provided in 2010, which Avtar Johal’s son and daughter-in-law used to purchase a home on Grand Boulevard. After Harvinder and Susan separated in 2018 and listed the property for sale, Johal and his company sought to recover the money, claiming it was an equity investment or a loan. They also alleged unjust enrichment.
However, the trial court found the payment to be a gift, a decision the Supreme Court upheld in a recent judgement.
In 2010, Harvinder and Susan began searching for a home in North Vancouver but they realized their combined funds of $750,000 and a mortgage of $420,000 were insufficient to purchase the home they desired. They approached Avtar for financial assistance, leading to his company providing $500,000 for the down payment.
To secure mortgage financing, the parties signed two gift letters in 2010—one for Dominion Lending Centre and another for Scotiabank—confirming the funds were a gift and would not need to be repaid. The trial judge noted that Avtar had multiple opportunities to assert a different intention regarding the funds, including when signing the gift letters and during subsequent discussions. However, no such claim was made until 2020, after the couple decided to sell the property following their separation
On appeal, Avtar and his company argued that the trial judge failed to distinguish between the legal intentions of Avtar as an individual and those of his company, which technically provided the funds. Justice Iyer rejected this argument, noting it was inconsistent with the evidence and submissions at trial, where Avtar treated his personal intention as determinative.
Ultimately, the BC Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate any significant legal or factual error. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the $500,000 payment was a gift and not a loan or investment.
