Prove it by saying she is deprived because she put

This preview shows page 26 - 28 out of 33 pages.

prove it by: saying she is deprived because she put all this time in, that he is enriched (results in something) and has to be unjust to keep the resulted stuffshe lost on 3rd part (he said she only did what any ranch wife did)oas a result every province FLRA (created a big asset class called family assetshouse bank accounts, cars, boats, home) if used by family, (family asset) then goes into a pool, regardless of who owned it or who payed for it, and how long the marriage is, it gets 50/50 both get half (tax free )time of separationoknowing when they separate is a tricky thing, and day to day thing is important (STOCKS)PETTKUS V BECKER 1980 SCC (PG 298)FACTS:Spouses (not married) operated a beekeeping business for 19 years then separated Family Law act: did not apply because they were not married (FLA of Ontario doesn’t apply to unmarried spousesodoes apply if you’re together for 2 years and splitocannot look at statute, only common lawodistinguishes the word spouse on purpose (for support then yes it will work)ISSUE:Could the plaintiff spouse prove either a resulting or constructive trust in order to get ashare of the businessRATIO:Permitting a spouse to work for nothing for 19 years knowing she reasonably anticipated getting a share of the business on a breakup creates an unjust enrichmentIn this care the court imposed a constructive trust on the legal owner of the property to hold one half for the non-titled partyUnjust to allow recipient to keep itSHE WON CASE (SHE COMMITTED SUICIDE)He should have expected that she would have wanted something out of ithe couldn’t say she’s just doing what wives would do, because they’re not married [together for 19 years]In order to have constructive trust, there needs to be an unjust enrichmentMalleable principleThey had no express arrangement for sharing economic gain (what she said)He claimed there was no common intentionLeads to constructive trustIn this case, the court imposed a constructive trust on the legal owner of the property to hold on half in trust for the non-titled party
,
RATHWELL V RATHWELL 1978 SCC (PG 289)FACTS:Parties married 23 years and all acquired property was in husband’s name aloneHusband had always said the land was “our” but changed his position on separationISSUE:Whether the wife’s contribution by way of money or money’s worth created an interestin the propertyRATIO:Here, unlike Murdoch, the issue of constructive trust was not argued, that claim was based on partnership and a resulting trustDistinguishes Murdoch (and implicitly, overrules it)If she puts in money’s worth then that will be constructive trustsFacts identical to MurdochoSame thing happenedoHere there was evidence that she put in case oConstructive trust (she put in money) and a resulting trust she was entitled to half propertyoYou still have to prove trusts if you’re together, not married (but way easier)oNothing has overruled this specific case opg. 298 right column (recognizing Murdoch there is a distinctive fact) between Murdoch and RathwellRELIANCE PG 328

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture