How have the courts interpreted intention in determining who owns a condominium?

The trial judge considered the intention of the parties concerning their ownership of the condominium, and concluded they had a common intention to acquire it together, thus providing the basis for a finding that the respondent held a portion of her interest in a resulting trust for the appellant (see Pettkus v. Becker). The question was whether they intended to own the condominium in equal shares or proportionate to their contributions. The trial judge held that their original intention to own the property equally was modified and became an intention to own it in proportion to their direct financial contributions. While he does not expressly set out his reasons for finding that the intention as to the ownership changed, it is implicit that the parties’ unequal contributions to the purchase and maintenance of the condominium led him to that conclusion. He found (at para. 50) that: ...it is likely that [the respondent] was reluctant to place [the appellant’s] name on title considering their unequal contributions, and [the appellant] recognized the reasonableness of that position. and (at para. 51): [The respondent’s] evidence is not inconsistent with an implied agreement that she and [the appellant] were beneficial owners of the condominium in proportion to their relative investments.