The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over a 2004 family property payment agreement, holding it was enforceable and that the limitation period ran only from the 2021 sale.
Applicant failed to prove unjust enrichment or that the parties engaged in a joint family venture; both parties carried on largely independent personal ventures despite shared residence, so there is no juristic reason to order unequal division or a share of respondent's military/VAC pension; equity in the jointly owned Lake Echo home is to be divided equally with a buyout option (calculated), spousal support denied and terminated effective December 2023, and each party retains sole ownership of assets in their own name.
Certification hearing in a ticket-resale class action. The court certified BPCPA claims, struck Competition Act, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims, and rejected restoration under s. 172(3).
Business practices and consumer protection act (bpcpa)
The court found no enforceable partnership or joint venture, but upheld a handwritten April 21, 2013 agreement requiring repayment of $315,000 plus interest and fees.
Claim dismissed because the claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that (1) the lottery prize belonged to the defendant or that the defendant held it on trust for the claimant and (2) there was an intention to create legally enforceable relations constituting a contract to share winnings; ownership by the ticket purchaser (Kaizer) and absence of evidence of a binding agreement defeat the claim.
The court held there was no enforceable contract to transfer land, but awarded the plaintiffs quantum meruit for services and dismissed the survey-fee claim.
Specific performance
Quantum meruit
Oral contract for land
Certainty of terms
Statute of frauds / writing requirement (law and equity act)