Unjust Enrichment Lawyers BC

Unjust Enrichment Lawyers

Our estate litigation and unjust enrichment lawyers help clients get what they’re owed in unjust enrichment cases.

Within families and close relationships, people regularly fulfill the needs of others as part of their commitment to loved ones. When the substantial activities or services of a person are not recognized within a will or testamentary document, those that gave time and effort can make a claim for payment against the estate or for an interest in real property that forms a part of the estate via a claim of constructive trust. At Vancouver’s Onyx Law Group, our estate litigation counsel represent clients who seek legal advice and guidance regarding their rights to compensation.

There are 3 remedies that you can ask the court to grant you from an unjust enrichment claim:

1) monetary restitution via the quantum meruit concept (value received approach)
2) monetary restitution via the value survived approach
3) constructive trust over title to real property.

Monetary restitution via the value received approach

Quantum meruit means “what one has earned.” The law allows for those who have provided services to be paid for those services even if there is no contract in place. In the case of family members who provide care-taking services for a loved one, for example, a quantum meruit claim can be advanced with the intent of securing a portion of the estate for the caretaker equivalent to the value of the services provided (for example on an hourly rate basis at the market rate of caregivers).

Monetary restitution via the value survived approach

Where there has been an unjust enrichment in the case of where one person holds a disproportionate amount of the family assets between the parties where both parties made contributions to the accumulation of assets, the wronged person can ask the court for a monetary award according to the value survived approach so that he or she can receive a share of the assets that is proportionate to his or her contribution to the accumulation and increase in value of the assets.

Remedial constructive trust over real property

When a person has made contributions towards the accumulation or increase in value of real property, and another person has been unjustly enriched by holding a disproportionate share of the real property, the wronged person can ask the court for an order that constructive trust be imposed over the entire or part of the real property in favour of the wronged party.

The three-part test the court actually applies

Every unjust enrichment claim, whether against an estate or a living defendant, runs through the same three questions the Supreme Court of Canada set out in Kerr v Baranow and refined from Garland v Consumers’ Gas. First, was the defendant enriched, meaning did they receive a benefit, whether money, labour, or care that spared them an expense? Second, did the claimant suffer a corresponding deprivation, a loss that matches that benefit? Third, and this is where most cases are won or lost, was there no juristic reason for the enrichment.

That third element works in two stages. The claimant first has to show the benefit falls outside the established categories that would justify keeping it: a contract, a gift, or a disposition required by law. Clear those, and the claimant has made out a prima facie case. The burden then shifts to the defendant, or the estate, to point to some other reason the enrichment should stand, judged against the reasonable expectations of the parties and any relevant public policy. Framing a claim around these stages, rather than a general sense of unfairness, is what separates a claim that survives a summary dismissal application from one that does not.

Joint family ventures and claims against a partner’s estate

Common-law partners raise unjust enrichment more than any other group, because BC’s property-division rules under the Family Law Act do not reach a partner who contributed to a home or business held only in the deceased’s name. Kerr v Baranow gave these claims a firmer footing through the “joint family venture.” Where two people worked together toward shared goals, the court looks at four markers: mutual effort, economic integration of their finances and lives, the actual intentions they showed, and the priority they placed on the family. Establish a joint family venture, and a link between the claimant’s contribution and the wealth the deceased accumulated, and the award is measured as a proportionate share of that wealth (the value-survived approach) rather than a bare hourly figure for services.

The choice between a money award and a constructive trust over specific property is not automatic. A monetary award is the starting point; a constructive trust is reserved for situations where money alone is inadequate and the contribution is tied to a particular asset, such as a home the survivor helped pay for or improve. A trust interest can matter a great deal against an insolvent estate or where the asset itself has appreciated. A surviving spouse or child who qualifies may run an unjust enrichment claim alongside a wills variation claim under the Wills, Estates and Succession Act; the two are separate routes to a fair result, and which one carries the most weight depends on the evidence and how title was held.

British Columbia Unjust Enrichment Lawyers

At Onyx Law Group, we believe in our clients. Our dedication to justice includes helping those who have given of themselves for the benefit of others to receive what they are owed. As in all of our will dispute cases, we take the time to listen to our clients and understand what their goals are in seeking legal advice. We then offer efficient and practical legal solutions to meet their needs.

Free Consultation

We believe it’s important to know your legal rights and obligations before making any decisions. That’s why we offer 30 minute free consultations to give you the opportunity to discuss your matter with a passionate and knowledgeable lawyer who can advise you on the best steps forward.