Palkowski v. Ivancic

Palkowski v. Ivancic

The trial judge's unchallenged finding that the written purchase agreement was a sham meant there was no valid contract providing a juristic reason; the elements of unjust enrichment were satisfied, monetary damages were inadequate, and in the exercise of equitable discretion (with awareness of clean hands) a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 ONCA 762
Parties
Plaintiffs (respondents): Jerry Palkowski and Jane Palkowski; Defendant (appellant): Stipan Ivancic also known as Steve Ivancic
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Judgment (post Trial)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the trial judge upheld.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Express Trust, Sham Transaction, Unjust Enrichment, Clean Hands Doctrine, S.37(1) CLPA Re Conveyance, Remedies in Equity, Juristic Reason (garland)
Source Language
english
Equity Trusts and Real Property Contract Law Unjust Enrichment Conveyancing Fraud/commercial Fraud Constructive Trust Express Trust +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jerry Palkowski and Jane Palkowski

Plaintiffs (respondents)

Stipan Ivancic also known as Steve Ivancic

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Judgment (post Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement of purchase and sale barred an unjust enrichment claim
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was a sham and therefore did not provide a juristic reason
  3. 3 Whether equitable relief (re-conveyance/constructive trust) was available despite unclean hands

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's unchallenged finding that the written purchase agreement was a sham meant there was no valid contract providing a juristic reason; the elements of unjust enrichment were satisfied, monetary damages were inadequate, and in the exercise of equitable discretion (with awareness of clean hands) a constructive trust/re-conveyance with an adjustment for the appellant's contributions was the appropriate remedy; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the trial judge upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents in the amount of $17,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST
  • Trial judge's order requiring re-conveyance to the respondents subject to payment to the appellant to reflect his contributions (including a cash payment) was upheld