A gift requires three elements to be legally effected, namely an intention to donate, an acceptance of the gift, and delivery of the gift. All three elements must be present for the gift to be complete, and it is then irrevocable.
Accordingly, a transfer of title into joint tenancy has three potential legal consequences:
McKendry v McKendry 2015 BCSC 2433 followed the Pecore case and stated inter alia:
 The legal principles applicable when considering a gratuitous transfer into joint tenancy are not in dispute. The basic question is whether the transferor intended to make a gift, or whether the transferee holds the property transferred on a resulting trust.
 Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, is the leading case.
 It is the actual intention of the transferor at the time of the transfer that is relevant: Pecore, at paras. 5,44 and 59. 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. See Pecore, at paras. 24 and 43.
Rothstein J. also noted (Pecore, at para.44):
 As in other civil cases, regardless of the legal burden,
both sides to the dispute will normally bring evidence to support their position. The trial judge will commence his or her inquiry with the applicable presumption and will weigh all of the evidence in an attempt to ascertain, on a balance of probabilities, the transferor’s actual intention. Thus, as discussed by Sopinka et al, in The Law of Evidence in Canada, at p. 116, the presumption will only determine the result where there is insufficient evidence to rebut it on a balance of probabilities.
 Accordingly, where a gratuitous transfer is being challenged, the trial judge must begin the inquiry by determining the proper presumption to apply and then weigh all the evidence relating to the actual intention of the transferor to determine whether the presumption has been rebutted: Pecore, at para. 55. In general, evidence of the transferor’s intention at the time of the transfer ought to be contemporaneous, or nearly so to the transaction: Pecore, at para. 56.
Nevertheless, evidence of intention that arises subsequent to a transfer should not automatically be excluded. However, such evidence “must be relevant to the intention of the transferor at the time of the transfer