The farm, the break-up and unjust enrichment

Ms. D and Mr. L cohabited in a marriage-like relationship from in or about August 1992 until January 13, 2006. They did not have children together; however, Ms. D had a daughter who lived with the parties from the age of 12 until she turned 22. The plaintiff, Ms. D, sought a declaration from the B.C. Supreme Court that the defendant, Mr. L, was unjustly enriched through her efforts on his farm and financial contributions and that she has suffered a corresponding deprivation. In particular, Ms. D claimed an interest by way of constructive trust in respect of two properties registered solely in Mr. L’s name.

Under provincial family law statutes, spouses are entitled to a share of the "net family property" on the breakdown of marriage.  In this case, where the parties were not married, the division of property depends on the Common Law and principles of Equity. 

Mr. L opposed Ms. D’s claim for a division of assets based on unjust enrichment and constructive trust.  He maintained that Ms. D did not suffer any deprivation because she was enriched by the lifestyle she enjoyed while living on his property and was able to rent out her own property, provide her daughter with a residence, and ultimately sell her own property for a considerable profit. In the alternative, Mr. L argued there was a juristic reason for the deprivation because the parties had an agreement that her financial contribution and labour represented rent for Ms. D and her daughter while they resided in the Family Residence.  In the further alternative, Mr. L argued that if a division of assets is ordered, only the Family Residence should be divided and any interest accorded to Ms. D should be minimal.

In order to succeed in a claim for unjust enrichment, Ms. D had to demonstrate:

1. That Mr. L was enriched by her contributions;
2. That she was correspondingly deprived by contributing to Mr. L;
3. That there was no jurisitic reason for the enrichment.

In other words, Ms. D needed to show that she had provided, to her detriment, a benefit to L for no "juristic" or legal reason (e.g. under a contract or other legal obligation owed to him).  Perhaps there were non-legal reasons to justify her contribution and L's enrichment, but in this case the Court was concerned only with legal justifications.

In the end, the Court found not only that Mr. L was unjustly enriched and that the appropriate remedy was to provide Ms. D with a beneficial interest in his property (i.e. the constructive trust - a trust created by the Court), but that Ms. D was also unjustly enriched at the expense of Mr. L.  The Court found that there was a benefit conferred on Ms. D in the form of shelter and a contribution toward her living expenses.  Had Ms. D and her daughter lived on their own they would have incurred living expenses such as rent or mortgage payments, food, and clothing.  Mr. L’s home also afforded them an opportunity to live in a rural environment which was their preference. More directly, Mr. L’s provision of shelter permitted Ms. D to rent out her Apartment as a means of earning income and paying off the mortgage. Lastly, Mr. L provided some used appliances for the Apartment and recommended the installer that Ms. D hired to replace the floors.

Read the decision at: D v. L.