Parnell v. Viger

Parnell v. Viger

The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent was unjustly enriched by contributions to the home and one boat and was entitled to a constructive trust interest quantified at $97,000 (derived from 45% of the residence and 20% of the boat), rejected the inclusion of the appellant's business as subject to a constructive trust, converted the percentage formulation to a fixed monetary judgment of $97,000, ordered post‑judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, secured the respondent's monetary judgment and trial costs against the Rushdale Drive property and authorized partition and sale if sums were not paid by the specified date.

Citation
C40514
Parties
Appellant/respondent by Way of Cross Appeal: Richard William Parnell; Respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal: Lynn Susan Viger
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Family / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Judgment (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal dismissed in part; trial orders varied to fix monetary judgment and provide security and enforcement mechanisms
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Unjust Enrichment, Partition and Sale, Costs, Post Judgment Interest, Security for Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Equity Property Law Unjust Enrichment Remedies Constructive Trust Partition and Sale Costs +2 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard William Parnell

Appellant/respondent by Way of Cross Appeal

Lynn Susan Viger

Respondent/appellant by Way of Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Family / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Judgment (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent acquired a constructive trust in the appellant's residential property and boat
  2. 2 Whether unjust enrichment occurred and whether constructive trust is appropriate remedy
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's business should be subject to a constructive trust

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent was unjustly enriched by contributions to the home and one boat and was entitled to a constructive trust interest quantified at $97,000 (derived from 45% of the residence and 20% of the boat), rejected the inclusion of the appellant's business as subject to a constructive trust, converted the percentage formulation to a fixed monetary judgment of $97,000, ordered post‑judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, secured the respondent's monetary judgment and trial costs against the Rushdale Drive property and authorized partition and sale if sums were not paid by the specified date.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal dismissed in part; trial orders varied to fix monetary judgment and provide security and enforcement mechanisms

Orders

  • Respondent awarded fixed monetary judgment of $97,000 representing her interest in the Rushdale Drive residence and the boat
  • Judgment shall bear post‑judgment interest from the date of the trial judge's decision in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act