Unjust Enrichment

Where an individual is not able to seek a variation of the Will under the Wills Variation Act or the validity of the Will cannot be challenged, there is potentially an unjust enrichment case.

In Pettkus v. Becker ([1980] 2 S.C.R. 834), the Supreme Court of Canada held that

In any unjust enrichment claim, the plaintiff must establish three elements: an enrichment of or benefit to the defendant, a corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff, and the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment

The Court in Kerr v. Baranow (2011 SCC 10) explained these elements as follows at paras. 38-40:

[38] For the first requirement — enrichment — the plaintiff must show that he or she gave something to the defendant which the defendant received and retained. The benefit need not be retained permanently, but there must be a benefit which has enriched the defendant and which can be restored to the plaintiff in specie or by money…

[39] Turning to the second element — a corresponding deprivation — the plaintiff’s loss is material only if the defendant has gained a benefit or been enriched… That is why the second requirement obligates the plaintiff to establish not simply that the defendant has been enriched, but also that the enrichment corresponds to a deprivation which the plaintiff has suffered…

[40] The third element of an unjust enrichment claim is that the benefit and corresponding detriment must have occurred without a juristic reason. To put it simply, this means that there is no reason in law or justice for the defendant’s retention of the benefit conferred by the plaintiff, making its retention “unjust” in the circumstances of the case…

In Kawana v. Shemal (2011 BCSC 377), the court elaborated on what is required at the first stage of the analysis:

At the first stage of the juristic reason analysis, the plaintiff must show that none of the established categories of juristic reasons for the enrichment apply to deny recovery. The established categories of juristic reasons include: contract, a disposition by law, donative intent, and other valid common law, equitable or statutory obligations.

If the court finds that there has been an unjust enrichment and the subject matter of the dispute is a particular property, the court may impose a constructive trust. This means that the claimant will get legal ownership over part or all of the property.

Otherwise, the court considers the contribution of the claimant and makes an educated guess on the value of the services provided.