What is the test for having a common intention to move into a rental house?

Before leaving the “family asset” issue, I should mention a point that was in contention between the parties. The plaintiff claimed that he and the defendant always planned to move into the rental house, whereas the defendant, while admitting she harboured that idea for a time, denied that this common intention existed after the plaintiff’s extended period of unemployment. The plaintiff also alleges that he and the defendant discussed moving to the rental property on two occasions, once being in the presence of her family, and that the defendant’s parents had discouraged such a move. The defendant also denied these allegations. She said that only once did the defendant discuss moving out of her parents’ home, and he was not suggesting that they move to the rental property. It is my view that this evidence has little or no relevance, because a mutual intention that property will be used for a family purpose (assuming that such an intention exists) will not make it a family asset. See Bower v. Bower [1996] B.C.J. No. 3113 (Lowry, J.) at paragraph 19. I might add that, in this case, I would find that if such a mutual intention existed, it had ceased to exist by 1993 at the latest.