What is the legal concept relevant to the analysis of the resulting trust and what is the burden of proving that the transferor intended to transfer the property to the original owner?

The first legal concept relevant to the analysis is that of the resulting trust. As explained by Rothstein J. in Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17 at paragraph 20: A resulting trust arises when title to property is in one party's name, but that party, because he or she is a fiduciary or gave no value for the property, is under an obligation to return it to the original title owner... The law presumes a resulting trust in certain situations. Again, as explained by Rothstein J. at paragraph 24 of Pecore: The presumption of resulting trust is a rebuttable presumption of law and general rule that applies to gratuitous transfers. When a transfer is challenged, the presumption allocates the legal burden of proof. Thus, where a transfer is made for no consideration, the onus is placed on the transferee to demonstrate that a gift was intended... To rebut the presumption, the transferee must show on a balance of probabilities that the transferor had an intention contrary to or inconsistent with the intention the law presumes in relation to gratuitous transfers (Pecore at paragraph 43).