Short answer: Unjust enrichment has a three-part test: the defendant was enriched, the plaintiff suffered a corresponding deprivation, and there is no juristic reason for the enrichment. The usual remedy is money. Where the couple ran a joint family venture and the wealth is linked to the claimant’s contributions, that money can be measured as a share of accumulated wealth rather than a fee for services. A property (constructive trust) remedy is available only where money is inadequate and contributions are linked to a specific asset.
In the context of common law relationships in British Columbia, property disputes often arise when the couple breaks up. The previous method of resolving these disputes was through the determination of a resulting trust or unjust enrichment complaint. The Supreme Court of Canada has made a decision which clarifies the differences between these two legal concepts.
Unjust Enrichment
The elements of unjust enrichment are that the defendant was enriched by the plaintiff, who was correspondingly deprived, and that there is no legal or moral justification for the defendant to keep that enrichment. The aim of an unjust enrichment remedy is to repay or reverse the benefit. The plaintiff may be entitled to a monetary payment or an entitlement to property.
In the case of a monetary payment, the Supreme Court decided that it should not be limited to value received or quantum meruit. This restriction would be similar to a fee-for-services calculation and would not accurately reflect the lives of many domestic partners. The Supreme Court found that unjust enrichment is a more appropriate tool to use in the resolution of property disputes in the breakdown of common law relationships.
Quantum Meruit
The term Quantum Meruit is often used in the context of contracts and is based on the principle of fairness and justice. The term literally means “what one has earned” and is used to determine the value of services or goods provided when there is no agreement or contract in place. In other words, it is a method of calculating the amount that should be paid for services or goods based on what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This concept is commonly used in situations where there has been an implicit or express agreement to pay for services or goods but there is no written agreement, or when a contract has been terminated before it is completed.
What’s the difference between Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit?
While both are used in the context of property disputes or contracts, they have some distinct differences.
Unjust enrichment refers to a situation where one person has been enriched at the expense of another, and there is no legal or moral justification for that person to keep the enrichment. This principle is based on the idea that it is not fair for someone to receive a benefit without paying for it. Unjust enrichment can be remedied through a monetary payment or an entitlement to property.
Quantum meruit, on the other hand, is a method of calculating the value of services or goods provided when there is no agreement or contract in place. It is based on the principle of fairness and justice and is used to determine what one has earned or is entitled to. Quantum meruit is often used in situations where a contract has been terminated before it is completed, or where there has been an implicit or express agreement to pay for services or goods but there is no written agreement.
Case Study #1: Kerr v. Baranow
In the case of Kerr v. Baranow, the couple had been together for over 25 years when they separated. Mr. Baranow paid off Ms. Kerr’s debts and took early retirement to care for her when she had a stroke. When Ms. Kerr sought division of their property, both parties claimed unjust enrichment, and Ms. Kerr claimed a resulting trust. The Supreme Court found problems with the previous decisions and ordered a new trial for both parties to argue their unjust enrichment claims.
Case Study #2: Vanasse v. Seguin
In Vanasse v. Seguin, the parties lived together for 12 years and had two children. Ms. Vanasse had relocated with Mr. Seguin for his work and took care of domestic labour and child care. This allowed Mr. Seguin to develop his business. At the time of separation, Ms. Vanasse’s assets were much less than Mr. Seguin’s. The trial judge found unjust enrichment over a period of 3.5 years and made a monetary award representing half of the earnings during those years. The court of appeal reversed this decision, but the Supreme Court reinstated the trial judge’s order.
Final Thoughts
The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified the differences between unjust enrichment and quantum meruit in British Columbia law. Unjust enrichment is a more appropriate tool in the resolution of property disputes in the breakdown of common law relationships and is not limited to value received or quantum meruit. The two case studies, Kerr v. Baranow and Vanasse v. Seguin, demonstrate the application of unjust enrichment in property disputes.
The three-part test, stated precisely
The phrase “no legal or moral justification” is a fair plain-language summary, but the courts use a tighter formula. Following Garland v. Consumers’ Gas and confirmed for domestic cases in Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, a claim in unjust enrichment has three elements:
- an enrichment of the defendant — a benefit received;
- a corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff — the flip side of that benefit; and
- the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment.
“Juristic reason” is the part that decides most cases. It asks whether there is a valid reason in law for the defendant to keep the benefit — a contract, a gift, or a legal obligation. The analysis runs in two stages: first, the plaintiff has to show none of the established categories (a contract, a donative intent, or a disposition of law) applies; then the defendant gets a chance to point to some other reason the enrichment should stand, looking at the parties’ reasonable expectations and public policy. Unpaid domestic and financial contributions across a long relationship rarely have a “juristic reason” behind them, which is why these claims succeed as often as they do.
The joint family venture
The important move in Kerr v. Baranow was to recognize that couples often pool their lives rather than trade services at arm’s length. Where the two people operated as a joint family venture, and the accumulation of wealth is linked to the claimant’s contributions, the monetary award is not capped at a fee-for-services figure. A court looks at four indicators to decide whether a joint family venture existed:
- mutual effort — did the parties work collaboratively toward common goals;
- economic integration — how intertwined were their finances;
- actual intent — did they treat the relationship as a partnership, in conduct or in words; and
- priority of the family — did one partner rely on the relationship to their detriment, for example by giving up a career.
Value received versus value survived
This is where the two concepts in the title actually diverge in dollars. A strict quantum meruit award measures value received: the reasonable price of the services the claimant provided, as if you were paying a housekeeper or a bookkeeper by the hour. Where a joint family venture is proven, the award can instead be measured on a value-survived basis: a share of the wealth the couple built, proportionate to the claimant’s contribution. In a long relationship where one partner’s work at home let the other build a business or a real-estate portfolio, the value-survived figure is often far larger than any hourly reckoning — which is the whole reason the distinction matters.
When you get property instead of money
A monetary award is the default. A proprietary remedy — a constructive trust, meaning an actual interest in a specific asset — is reserved for cases where money is inadequate and there is a sufficiently substantial and direct link between the claimant’s contributions and the property in question. That link is the threshold most trust claims turn on. Contributions to the household generally, without a traceable connection to a particular asset, point toward a monetary award; contributions poured into a specific home or business can support a trust over it.
Where this fits in BC today
Since the Family Law Act came into force, unmarried couples who lived together in a marriage-like relationship for at least two years divide property under the statute, much like married spouses, so they rarely need an unjust enrichment claim to reach a fair split. These claims now do their heaviest work for couples who fall outside that definition — partners together less than two years, or relationships that do not fit the statutory “spouse” test — and for specific asset or trust claims that the property regime does not resolve. Knowing which framework governs your situation is the first thing to sort out.
Frequently asked questions
What are the three elements of unjust enrichment?
A claim in unjust enrichment requires three things: an enrichment of the defendant, a corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff, and the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment. This test comes from Garland v. Consumers’ Gas and was confirmed for domestic cases in Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10.
What is a “juristic reason”?
A juristic reason is a valid reason in law for the defendant to keep the benefit, such as a contract, a gift, or a legal obligation. The plaintiff first has to show none of the established categories applies, and then the defendant may point to some other reason the enrichment should stand, based on the parties’ reasonable expectations and public policy.
What is a joint family venture?
A joint family venture is a relationship in which the couple pooled their efforts and finances toward common goals rather than dealing at arm’s length. Courts look at four factors: mutual effort, economic integration, actual intent, and priority of the family. Where a joint family venture is proven and the accumulated wealth is linked to the claimant’s contributions, the monetary award is not limited to a fee for services.
What is the difference between value received and value survived?
Value received measures the reasonable price of the services the claimant provided, similar to a fee-for-services or quantum meruit calculation. Value survived measures a share of the wealth the couple accumulated, proportionate to the claimant’s contribution. The value-survived approach is available where a joint family venture is established, and in long relationships it often produces a larger award.
When does a court order a share of property instead of money?
A monetary award is the default. A court orders a proprietary remedy, such as a constructive trust, only where money is inadequate and there is a sufficiently substantial and direct link between the claimant’s contributions and a specific property. Contributions tied to a particular home or business can support a trust over it.
Disclaimer: This page is general legal information about British Columbia law, not legal advice for any particular situation. Reading it does not create a solicitor-client relationship. BC law and procedure change, and the outcome of any case depends on facts not covered here. For advice on your own circumstances, speak with a qualified British Columbia lawyer. Illustrative examples do not guarantee similar outcomes in any specific case.