Canada Case Law

Groves v. Luedee

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The applicant proved unjust enrichment in respect of specific monetary contributions, assumption of renovation debt and unpaid labour linked to the respondent's home, entitling him to a monetary award on a quantum meruit basis of $17,865.65; there was insufficient evidence of a shared intention, economic integration or other indicia of a joint family venture to support proprietary or value‑survived relief, so equitable proprietary remedies were denied.

Source excerpt

• Unjust enrichment
• Quantum meruit
• Value survived
• Joint family venture
• Constructive trust
• Preservation order

Read case analysis

Carew (Estate of) v. Carew

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Estate is the recorded owner and qualifies as landlord under the OTA; the respondent occupies 23 Railroad Street without legal title or rent and is overholding; the Complaint under the OTA was proved and an Order for Possession was properly granted, subject to a reasonable vacate period and without extinguishing any separate probate or proprietary claims the respondent may bring.

Source excerpt

• Order for possession
• Overholding tenants act
• Estate administration
• Occupancy disputes
• Constructive trust
• Unjust enrichment

Read case analysis

Oranchuk v. Oranchuk

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Although the plaintiff conferred some benefit and suffered a corresponding deprivation, the court found a juristic reason for the enrichment in the implied reciprocal arrangement exchanging labour for accommodation and, alternatively, that the plaintiff's expectations were unreasonable; further, the claim was barred by laches because of long acquiescence and delay. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed and no constructive trust was imposed.

Source excerpt

• Unjust enrichment
• Constructive trust
• Laches / acquiescence
• Implied contract (labour for accommodation)
• Credibility and evidence

Read case analysis

Moghari v. Dolatshah

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned because the appellants did not demonstrate a bona fide intention to prosecute the appeal (they failed to take necessary steps or promptly inform the respondent), the respondent would be prejudiced by delay (loss of possession, rental income and risk of tax sale), the appeal had little prospect of success given factual and credibility-based findings at trial and underdeveloped legal argument, and the interests of justice favored dismissal rather than granting an extension or stay.

Source excerpt

• Constructive trust
• Abandonment of appeal
• Extension of time
• Stay applications
• Prejudice from delay
• Credibility and deference to trial findings

Read case analysis

Boston Development Corp. v. Takhar

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The NOCC, read as a whole and assumed true, does not plead any legal or beneficial interest in the Property as against the registered owner nor plead that funds were actually used to acquire the Property or that the registered owner engaged in any wrongful acquisition; because the preconditions of s.215 LTA are not met, the CPL registered against the Property must be cancelled and deficiencies cannot be cured by subsequent amendment on this application.

Source excerpt

• Certificate of pending litigation
• Constructive trust
• Pleading sufficiency
• Section 215 lta
• Cancellation of cpl
• Costs

Read case analysis

Skycope Technologies Inc. v. Jia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Although Mr. Jia established enrichment and corresponding deprivation tied to an expectation of equity, his equitable claim is satisfied because his receipt of Shengkong shares via the Share Transfer Agreement constituted a juristic reason (contractual allocation of enterprise equity) justifying Skycope's retention of his contributions; additionally, his breach of fiduciary duties would have barred equitable remuneration if the claim otherwise succeeded; therefore the equitable claim to Skycope shares is dismissed and costs awarded to Skycope.

Source excerpt

• Constructive trust
• Promissory estoppel
• Share entitlement
• Misuse of confidential information
• Clean hands/faithless fiduciary
• Costs

Read case analysis

Lalli v. Lalli

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal, declared the appellants held a 50% ownership interest in the residential property, remitted accounting, and awarded costs.

• Equitable interest
• Constructive trust
• Accounting
• Costs awards
• Offer to settle
• Costs

Read case analysis

Robinson v. Robinson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The appeal is allowed because the appellant satisfied the Phaneuf two‑part test: the proposed counterclaims are sufficiently related to the main action and were pleaded in the response; the explanation for the delay (electing to pursue counterclaims only if the main claim proceeded) was adequate; and the equities favored deciding all issues together, so extension to file the counterclaim should be granted.

Source excerpt

• Counterclaim
• Extension of time
• Constructive trust
• Equitable interest
• Insurance proceeds
• Relatedness of claims

Read case analysis

Horwood v. Hanna

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The application is dismissed because the plaintiff offered no evidence tracing the alleged misapplied profits into the Evergreen Property and relied on deemed admissions that bind only the defaulting defendants, not competing third-party creditors; proprietary relief should have been pursued in an action joining all owners and chargeholders and cannot be imposed on the existing record.

Source excerpt

• Constructive trust
• Substantive vs remedial trust
• Deemed admissions
• Tracing of misapplied funds
• Priority of creditors
• Default judgment

Read case analysis

Sagebrush Golf Course Holdings Ltd. v. Craig

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The notice of civil claim does not, even assuming its allegations true, plead any interest in the Sagebrush Property or a sufficient nexus between the pleaded causes of action and that property; therefore the CPL was improperly registered and must be cancelled under s.215 LTA; costs to petitioners at Scale B and special costs declined.

Source excerpt

• Certificate of pending litigation
• Constructive trust
• Unjust enrichment
• Tracing
• Costs

Read case analysis