were based on this court’s decision in Hansen Estate v. Hansen
(2012), 109 O.R. (3d) 241,  O.J. No. 780, 2012 ONCA 112.
 The application judge found that no “shenanigans, or
manoeuvres of title” were used to deprive the estate of an asset.
He found no unjust enrichment and no constructive trust.
The application judge summarized his decision as follows, at
[T]his case [concerns] an inter vivos gift meant to be accomplished outside
of the estate stream, and I am completely satisfied that the gifting and the
intent of the testatrix make for bona fide ownership of the property in
the hands of Ingrid Niels.
C. Issues on Appeal
 Marjolein submits that the application judge made sev-
eral errors in his judgment and costs award. The issues may be
summarized and addressed as follows:
(1) Did the application judge err in concluding that the joint
tenancy had not been severed?
(2) Did the application judge err in concluding that Theadora
gifted the property to Richard and Ingrid?
(3) Did the application judge err in concluding that Theadora
was not subject to undue influence?
(4) Did the application judge err in awarding costs against her
and not the estate, or, in the alternative, err in the amount
that he awarded?
Was the joint tenancy severed?
 It is well established that severance of a joint tenancy
may be achieved in one of three ways — described as the “three
rules” in Hansen, at para 34, and summarized as follows:
Rule 1: unilaterally acting on one’s own share, such as selling or encumber-
Rule 2: a mutual agreement between the co-owners to sever the joint
Rule 3: any course of dealing sufficient to intimate that the interests of all
were mutually treated as constituting a tenancy in common.
 Marjolein’s primary submission is that that the joint tenancy was severed by the 2009 separation agreement, pursuant
to which Richard agreed to transfer his interest in the property
to Ingrid on the death of Theadora and, which, in any event,