Understanding the distinctions between ‘joint tenancy’ and ‘tenants in common’ is critical in property law, as these forms of ownership carry different rights and consequences.
The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Jackson v. Rosenberg (2024 ONCA 875) illustrates these differences with remarkable clarity, especially in the context of the right of survivorship and the ability to sever a joint tenancy.
Joint tenancy is characterized by the “four unities”- possession, interest, title, and time. Among its defining features is the right of survivorship. Upon the death of one joint tenant, their interest in the property automatically passes to the surviving joint tenants, bypassing the deceased’s estate and avoiding probate fees. Joint tenants also have equal rights to the entire property during their lifetimes, and any joint tenant can sever the joint tenancy, converting it into a tenancy in common.
Tenants in common hold distinct, undivided shares in the property, which can be unequal. There is no right of survivorship; upon death, each tenant’s share passes according to their will or estate plan. Unlike joint tenancy, a tenancy in common does not require the four unities and allows for more individualized control over each party’s interest.
The case of Jackson v. Rosenberg centered on two transfers of title to a home in Port Hope, Ontario. In 2012, Nigel Jackson transferred title to himself and Lori Rosenberg as joint tenants, intending to give Rosenberg a right of survivorship to avoid probate fees. In 2020, Jackson unilaterally severed the joint tenancy, converting the ownership to a tenancy in common. The court had to decide whether Rosenberg’s rights included immediate beneficial ownership or were limited to a right of survivorship, and whether Jackson retained the right to sever the joint tenancy.
The court affirmed that Jackson’s 2012 transfer constituted a gift of the right of survivorship, not an immediate beneficial interest. This means Rosenberg was entitled to the property’s equity upon Jackson’s death, but held no enforceable rights during his lifetime. The presumption of resulting trust, which applies in gratuitous transfers, was partially rebutted by Jackson’s clear intention to limit the gift. The court upheld that Jackson retained the unilateral right to sever the joint tenancy. Severance effectively ended the right of survivorship, converting the ownership to a tenancy in common. The decision highlighted that the right of survivorship is inherently contingent on the joint tenancy remaining intact.
The court relied on Pecore v. Pecore 2007 SCC 17, which clarified that the gift of a right of survivorship does not prevent the donor from exercising rights over the property during their lifetime. The reasoning in Simcoff v. Simcoff 2009 MBCA 80 and Bergen v. Bergen 2013 BCCA 492 further supported the conclusion that a donor’s ability to sever a joint tenancy is preserved unless explicitly relinquished.
This decision underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of property ownership structures, particularly for estate planning and asset management. While joint tenancy can be a tool to avoid probate, its implications during the lifetimes of joint tenants must be carefully considered. As seen in Jackson v. Rosenberg, failing to clarify intentions can lead to disputes. Explicit documentation of the transferor’s intentions can help avoid litigation.
In this case, the court relied heavily on evidence that Jackson intended only to gift a right of survivorship. Parties entering into joint tenancy should understand that each joint tenant retains the right to sever the tenancy, which can fundamentally alter the other party’s interests.
The decision in Jackson v. Rosenberg provides a valuable reminder of the differences between joint tenancy and tenants in common and the legal principles governing these ownership structures. For professionals advising clients on property ownership or estate planning, this case highlights the necessity of precise communication, clear intentions and careful drafting to ensure that ownership arrangements align with the parties’ goals.
Share this article on: