Is there a presumption of advancement arising from the mere opening of a bank account in joint names?

While it is true that there may no longer be a presumption of advancement arising from the mere opening of a bank account in joint names (see Rathwell v. Rathwell, 1978 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 436, [1978] 2 W.W.R. 101, 1R.F.L. (2d) 1, 1 E.T.R. 307, 83 D.L.R. (3d) 289), the fact that moneys from M.S.A. were deposited in joint bank accounts is evidence that the defendant intended those accounts to be utilized for family purposes. In fact it is, in the circumstances of this case, the only evidence. It is clear that the defendant's testimony, that all the proceeds derived from M.S.A. and deposited in the five accounts were intended to be used for his personal security to the exclusion of his wife, cannot apply to the joint accounts. If the defendant intended to keep all the M.S.A. moneys separate, to the exclusion of the plaintiff, he would not have left those moneys in the joint accounts. In short, the defendant, insofar as the joint accounts are concerned, has not satisfied the onus upon him to show that the joint bank accounts were not intended to be used for a family purpose: s. 47 of the Act.