Francheville v. Levasseur

Francheville v. Levasseur

Applying Kerr v. Baranow unjust enrichment framework the adjudicator found insufficient evidence of a joint family venture, concluded the RRSP was funded entirely from the defendant's earnings and that the claimant suffered no corresponding deprivation or that, alternatively, there was a sufficient juristic reason for the defendant to retain the RRSP; accordingly the RRSP claim was dismissed. Claims for fridge refund, damage deposit and fencing were disallowed for lack of enrichment/proprietary interest or because fencing was a gift/fixture. Proven claims (oil bill, used furniture imbalance, Costco credit, claim filing cost) were awarded, producing a net judgment of CAD 869.44 in favor of...

Citation
2013 NSSM 6
Parties
Claimant: Andrea Francheville; Defendant: Lucie Levasseur
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision (hearing Held Dec 4, 2012; Decision Rendered Jan 15, 2013)
Outcome
Partially in favour of claimant; RRSP claim dismissed; monetary judgment awarded for specific items amounting to CAD 869.44 in favour of claimant
Legal Topics
RRSP, Cohabitation, Joint Family Venture, Joint Budget, Conversion of Personal Property, Fixtures, Costs, Tax Implications
Source Language
English
Unjust Enrichment Family Law Property Law Tort Conversion Equitable Remedies RRSP Cohabitation Joint Family Venture +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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrea Francheville

Claimant

Lucie Levasseur

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision (hearing Held Dec 4, 2012; Decision Rendered Jan 15, 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is entitled to one half of the defendant's RRSP
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was unjustly enriched
  3. 3 Whether the claimant suffered a corresponding deprivation

Ratio Decidendi

Applying Kerr v. Baranow unjust enrichment framework the adjudicator found insufficient evidence of a joint family venture, concluded the RRSP was funded entirely from the defendant's earnings and that the claimant suffered no corresponding deprivation or that, alternatively, there was a sufficient juristic reason for the defendant to retain the RRSP; accordingly the RRSP claim was dismissed. Claims for fridge refund, damage deposit and fencing were disallowed for lack of enrichment/proprietary interest or because fencing was a gift/fixture. Proven claims (oil bill, used furniture imbalance, Costco credit, claim filing cost) were awarded, producing a net judgment of CAD 869.44 in favor of...

Court Disposition

Partially in favour of claimant; RRSP claim dismissed; monetary judgment awarded for specific items amounting to CAD 869.44 in favour of claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant CAD 240.00 for oil bill.
  • Defendant to pay Claimant CAD 500.00 for disproportionate retention of used furniture, or alternatively propose returning specified furniture in lieu of payment; Claimant to choose whether to accept money or furniture.