BCI Bulkhaul Carriers Inc. v. Wallace

BCI Bulkhaul Carriers Inc. v. Wallace

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's remedial choice: a monetary restitution on a value received basis (repayment of mortgage and tax payments plus interest) was appropriate given the factual matrix (no joint enterprise, parties' expectations, mutual benefits, and lack of the necessary direct causal link to justify a value‑survived proprietary award); however the trial judge erred in apportioning costs based on a pre‑trial concession by some defendants because live issues remained and the concession did not eliminate all risk of an award, so the costs order was set aside and replaced with an award of one third of the appellant's trial costs to be assessed at Scale B.

Citation
2017 BCCA 180
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): BCI Bulkhaul Carriers Inc.; Respondent (defendant): David Scott Wallace; Respondent (defendant): Shona Yvonne Wallace; Respondent (defendant): Eugene Lewis Wallace; Respondent (defendant): Evelyn Mary Wallace
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia (unjust Enrichment/constructive Trust/property) / Appeal From Trial Judgment and Subsequent Costs Hearing (court of Appeal Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: first ground (choice of remedy) dismissed and trial remedy affirmed; appeal allowed on costs, trial judge's costs apportionment set aside and substituted.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Restitutionary Remedies, Value Received V. Value Survived, Apportionment of Costs, Pre Trial Concessions
Source Language
English
Equity Unjust Enrichment Property Law Civil Procedure Costs Constructive Trust Restitutionary Remedies Value Received V. Value Survived Apportionment of Costs +1 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BCI Bulkhaul Carriers Inc.

Appellant (plaintiff)

David Scott Wallace

Respondent (defendant)

Shona Yvonne Wallace

Respondent (defendant)

Eugene Lewis Wallace

Respondent (defendant)

Evelyn Mary Wallace

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia (unjust Enrichment/constructive Trust/property) / Appeal From Trial Judgment and Subsequent Costs Hearing (court of Appeal Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate remedy for unjust enrichment: value received vs value survived
  2. 2 Whether claimant's payments created a proprietary interest or just a monetary restitution
  3. 3 Role of parties' legitimate expectations in remedy selection

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's remedial choice: a monetary restitution on a value received basis (repayment of mortgage and tax payments plus interest) was appropriate given the factual matrix (no joint enterprise, parties' expectations, mutual benefits, and lack of the necessary direct causal link to justify a value‑survived proprietary award); however the trial judge erred in apportioning costs based on a pre‑trial concession by some defendants because live issues remained and the concession did not eliminate all risk of an award, so the costs order was set aside and replaced with an award of one third of the appellant's trial costs to be assessed at Scale B.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: first ground (choice of remedy) dismissed and trial remedy affirmed; appeal allowed on costs, trial judge's costs apportionment set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • Trial judge's monetary remedy for unjust enrichment (repayment of mortgage and tax payments plus court ordered interest) affirmed
  • Trial judge's costs order set aside; substituted order awarding appellant one third of its trial costs to be assessed at Scale B