K.L.D. v. E.M.C. & R.[...] Ltd.

K.L.D. v. E.M.C. & R.[...] Ltd.

Where the plaintiff proved unjust enrichment in specific discrete instances but not a general jointly held proprietary interest, the appropriate remedy was monetary compensation (quantum meruit/compensatory orders) rather than a constructive trust in most assets; the court apportioned equitable shares for the [ ]2 property (70% plaintiff, 30% defendant) and made directed monetary orders and restitution (repayment of loans, sale proceeds, child support) together with specified interest and possession orders for chattels.

Citation
2005 BCSC 188
Parties
Plaintiff: K.L.D.; Defendant: E.M.C.; Defendant: R.[ ] Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (property and Family Law Constructive Trust, Unjust Enrichment, Child Support) / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff in part and for defendant in part; multiple monetary and possessory orders as set out below.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Unjust Enrichment, Quantum Meruit, Imputation of Income, Retroactive Child Support, Allocation of Proprietary Interest, Division of Chattels
Source Language
English
Family Law Property Law Equity and Trusts Contract / Commercial Law Tax (indirect) Constructive Trust Unjust Enrichment Quantum Meruit +4 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.L.D.

Plaintiff

E.M.C.

Defendant

R.[ ] Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (property and Family Law Constructive Trust, Unjust Enrichment, Child Support) / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff is entitled to constructive trusts or monetary compensation for contributions to various properties and businesses
  2. 2 Whether unjust enrichment occurred and whether there is a juristic reason for enrichment
  3. 3 Valuation and apportionment of contributions to the [ ]2 J.[ ] Road property

Ratio Decidendi

Where the plaintiff proved unjust enrichment in specific discrete instances but not a general jointly held proprietary interest, the appropriate remedy was monetary compensation (quantum meruit/compensatory orders) rather than a constructive trust in most assets; the court apportioned equitable shares for the [ ]2 property (70% plaintiff, 30% defendant) and made directed monetary orders and restitution (repayment of loans, sale proceeds, child support) together with specified interest and possession orders for chattels.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff in part and for defendant in part; multiple monetary and possessory orders as set out below.

Orders

  • No compensatory award for S.[..] Road property.
  • B.2[ ] Road: plaintiff awarded compensatory order $10,000 with interest from January 1, 2000.