When will the presumption of advancement be applied in common law cases?

Jackman v. Jackman , supra, is clear authority for the proposition that the presumption of advancement is to be applied in appropriate circumstances in common law cases. While I doubt whether what was said by Dickson J. in Rathwell v. Rathwell (speaking for himself, the Chief Justice and Spence J.) signifies more than the words used indicate — that the presumption has ceased to embody any credible inference of intention — and exclude the use of the presumption in factual situations which do not reveal any clear indication of intention — I do not find it necessary to decide the issue on this appeal. It is unnecessary to do so, in my judgment, because I am not persuaded that the judgment below is based on the application of the presumption or that the facts require the use of the presumption. Firstly, I am sure that if the experienced trial judge had used the presumption he would have said so in his careful reasons for judgment. Secondly, I can see no reason why he need have had resort to the presumption because there was evidence on which he could, and in my view did, find that the husband intended to make a gift to the wife.