Pettkus v. Becker

Pettkus v. Becker

Appeal dismissed: no resulting trust found because trial judge’s explicit finding of no common intention was not displaced; however constructive trust grounded in unjust enrichment is available to long-term common-law relationships where one party is enriched at the expense of the other who reasonably expected an interest and the enrichment lacks a juristic reason, and under those principles the respondent was entitled to a beneficial interest proportionate to her contributions (Court of Appeal’s one-half division affirmed in discretion).

Citation
[1980] 2 SCR 834
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Lothar Pettkus; Respondent (plaintiff): Rosa Becker
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 1980
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Common Law Spouse Rights, Unjust Enrichment Elements, Causal Connection, Estoppel, Matrimonial Property
Source Language
English
Trusts Equity Family Law Property Law Conflict of Laws Unjust Enrichment Constructive Trust Resulting Trust +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lothar Pettkus

Appellant (defendant)

Rosa Becker

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a resulting trust arises from an express or implied common intention between unmarried cohabitants
  2. 2 Whether a constructive trust grounded in unjust enrichment is available to a common-law spouse
  3. 3 Whether respondent’s labour and financial contributions causally connected to acquisition of property

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed: no resulting trust found because trial judge’s explicit finding of no common intention was not displaced; however constructive trust grounded in unjust enrichment is available to long-term common-law relationships where one party is enriched at the expense of the other who reasonably expected an interest and the enrichment lacks a juristic reason, and under those principles the respondent was entitled to a beneficial interest proportionate to her contributions (Court of Appeal’s one-half division affirmed in discretion).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the disposition of the Ontario Court of Appeal awarding respondent an interest in the lands and beekeeping business upheld
  • Respondent awarded an equitable interest proportionate to her contributions (Court of Appeal returned one-half in its discretion)