The judgment of the court was delivered by
STRATHY C.J.O.: —
 The appellant, Arlindo Teixeira (“Arlindo”), was a good
neighbour to Mary Markgraf (“Mary”) for nearly 15 years. He
helped her with household maintenance, drove her about and
assisted with chores like groceries and banking.
 Shortly before her death, Mary made a will. She made a
bequest to Arlindo of $100,000. She also wrote out a cheque to
him for $100,000. She asked her stepson to give it to Arlindo
with instructions that he should take it to her bank the next day.
 Cheque in hand, Arlindo went to Mary’s bank the next day.
After inspecting the cheque and making some inquiries, the
bank employee told him that they would have to investigate and
returned the cheque to him.
 What the bank employee did not tell Arlindo was that
Mary had insufficient funds in her account to cover the cheque.
The balance in her account was only $81,732.75. But Mary had
over $200,000 in other funds on deposit at the branch. Without
her specific instructions, however, the bank could not transfer
money to her chequing account to make up the shortfall.
 Mary died six days later. The bank was notified of her
death the following day and froze her accounts. Arlindo then
attempted to deposit the cheque at his own bank, but it was
returned, marked “funds frozen”.
 Mary’s stepson, her estate trustee, told Arlindo that he
would be receiving $100,000 from the estate and another
$100,000 to cover the cheque. However, after obtaining legal
advice, the estate trustee ultimately took the position that the
cheque was an imperfect gift that was not legally enforceable.
Arlindo received Mary’s $100,000 bequest under the will.
 Arlindo sued Mary’s estate for the value of the cheque. The
application judge dismissed his claim, finding that the gift failed
for lack of delivery.
 These reasons explain why I agree with the application
judge and would dismiss the appeal.
B. The Decision in the Court Below
 The application judge made the following central findings
of fact. First, Arlindo had acted as he did towards Mary without
thought of compensation. Second, there was no evidence of
a contract between Arlindo and Mary. Third, Arlindo had not
acted to his detriment in anticipation of receiving Mary’s cheque.