of the full, free and informed thought of the transferor. Evidence that the transferor received qualified and independent
advice can be used to rebut the presumption, although it is not
required in every case. But corroborating evidence is required
in order to rebut the presumption, whether direct or circumstantial in nature.
 The application judge applied the presumption that
undue influence was exerted, but based on his factual findings
concluded, at para. 184, that “the potential for domination and
therefore undue influence is completely rebutted”. The application judge emphasized the independence of Theadora. He found
that her advanced age was not a trigger for domination. This
was not a case in which a totally new estate plan had been
entered by a person facing a terminal illness. Theadora was pursuing an intention to gift the property that she developed in
2004 and never wavered from. She was cognitively engaged and
unfettered by persuasion.
 Although the application judge said that Marjolein
provided no evidence of undue influence, when his decision is
read as a whole, it is clear that he did not reverse the burden of
proof and require Marjolein to prove undue influence. On the
contrary, the application judge acknowledged the operability of
the presumption but found that it was rebutted. As the applica-
tion judge put it, at para. 179: “Nothing in the evidence
causes me any concern that the direction and eventual registra-
tion of the tri joint tenancy deed, was done with anything less
than the full acquiescence, acceptance and complete concurrence
of Mrs. Niels.”
 This ground of appeal must be rejected.
 The application judge awarded the respondent costs of
$55,951, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.
 Marjolein submits that the application judge erred in
awarding costs against her and not against the estate. She says
that the estate was a party to the proceedings and the application judge erred in concluding otherwise. She submits, further,
that Theadora was at fault for failing to spell out her intentions
with regard to placing the property into joint names, and a hearing was required to determine the matter as a result. In these
circumstances, public policy considerations require the estate to
 We would reject this submission.
 The estate had minimal involvement in the proceedings
and was not represented at the hearing. The litigation was