Garland v Consumers’ Gas Co [ Exam] 2-stage test for deciding if juristic reason 1. the person claiming unjust enrichment must show that there is no established category of juristic reason to deny the claim, and ( onus shifts to defendant) 2. the person opposing the claim may then argue that the parties' expectations were such that the claim should be denied or that the claim should be denied for public policy reasons. Common Intention Developed by SCC before there was legislation to deal with unmarried couples ending relationships Couldn’t use doctrine of resulting trust b/c cases involved “ indirect ” contributions o Spouse A would make down payment/mortgage payments o Spouse B would pay utility bills, contribute labour to joint enterprise, domestic chores, etc. But no direct payments toward property itself o Court had said couldn’t use resulting trust if contributions were indirect so had to invent something else Example Suppose …A is the legal owner of farm Spouse B alleges that there was an intention common to both A and B that A would hold title to farm on trust for both A and B in some proportionate share o or maybe for B alone. If that common intention can be established, that gives rise to a resulting trust in B’s favour. But easy for A to say, “I never had that intention”. With regular resulting trust, we don’t care about A’s intention concerned with B’s intention (B voluntary contributed) No presumptions either way with common intention doctrine f. Six Categories i. Express trusts and express trustees ii. Express trusts and third parties iii. Fiduciary relationships iv. Vendor-purchaser v. Fraud vi. General remedy g. monetary compensation or constructive trust Kerr v Baranow; Vanasse v Seguin, 2011, SCC “ doctrinally unsound ” re domestic cases resolving unmarried couple’s property disputes
o Only intention of grantor or transferor matters in resulting trust o Claimant’s contribution often not made in form of property o Search for common intention highly artificial Common intention still applicable to other kinds of relationships, however More flexible approach is “unjust enrichment” Unjust Enrichment remedy : remedial constructive trust ( usually only if damages are insufficient) or damages Remedial constructive trust : brought into existence for first time (unjust enrichment) Institutional constructive trust : pre-existing equitable obligation in relation to property o Trustee sells trust property and buys a yacht and absconds o Beneficiaries can ask for institutional constructive trust on yacht h. Peter v Beblow To get constructive trust, must be a relationship (nexus) between benefit and property in which plaintiff seeks interest Can’t plead “I provided unpaid baby sitting services for my neighbour so I want half his house.” o Must be able to show some link between what the plaintif has done, and the
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 199 pages?