What is the test for apportioning equity between a husband and wife in a matrimonial home?

With the wife’s primary position that she should receive 100% of the house, it is irrelevant whether the money advanced by her mother was a loan or not. In the alternative if the husband is given some equity, she says that the money advanced was a loan and should be deducted before apportioning the equity. In support of this position, she points to the existence of a signed promissory note with a specified manner of repayment, the fact that no other advances were given (or loaned) to other children, the fact that according to her the husband knew about the loan, and the “obvious distress” of her mother that the loan might not be repaid. The wife cites Kurytnik v. Javad, 2006 BCSC 1608, which gives a list of factors to be considered in these circumstances.

It is understood that the submission of the husband is that this money was a gift to both parties. He cites Gain v. Gain, 2010 BCSC 1832, where money advanced was found not to be a loan (although part of the money was found to be a gift to only one party, leading to reapportionment), and Maclean v. Milo, 2010 BCSC 1109, where money advanced was found not to be a loan (and was found to be a gift to one party, but in all the circumstances did not lead to reapportionment). The husband submits that nothing short of a fully secured mortgage will be considered a valid loan.