2,667
edits
Difference between revisions of "Property and Debt in Family Law Matters"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Property and Debt in Family Law Matters (view source)
Revision as of 05:54, 20 April 2013
, 05:54, 20 April 2013→Unjust enrichment and constructive trusts
| Line 207: | Line 207: | ||
''Enrichment'' means to have received a benefit or advantage, such as money or the benefit of unpaid labour or other services. ''Deprivation'' means to have lost the value that might have been otherwise received for the benefit or advantage, such as the loss of the money or the wages which might have been paid for labour or services. The deprivation must ''correspond'' to the enrichment, in the sense that the claimant was deprived of exactly the thing from which the respondent benefited. If the claimant can show these things, he or she will have established that the respondent was ''unjustly enrichment'' his or her contributions, and the court may impose a constructive trust to fix the situation. | ''Enrichment'' means to have received a benefit or advantage, such as money or the benefit of unpaid labour or other services. ''Deprivation'' means to have lost the value that might have been otherwise received for the benefit or advantage, such as the loss of the money or the wages which might have been paid for labour or services. The deprivation must ''correspond'' to the enrichment, in the sense that the claimant was deprived of exactly the thing from which the respondent benefited. If the claimant can show these things, he or she will have established that the respondent was ''unjustly enrichment'' his or her contributions, and the court may impose a constructive trust to fix the situation. | ||
(There are two other case from the Supreme Court of Canada that are critical in understanding constructive trusts, a 1993 case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1fs3f Peter v. Beblow]'', [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980, and a 2011 case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/2fs3h Kerr v. Baranow]'', [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269 . To get a proper understanding of the law relating to constructive trusts, you should read | (There are two other case from the Supreme Court of Canada that are critical in understanding constructive trusts, a 1993 case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1fs3f Peter v. Beblow]'', [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980, and a 2011 case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/2fs3h Kerr v. Baranow]'', [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269 . To get a proper understanding of the law relating to constructive trusts, you should read all of ''Pettkus v. Becker'', ''Peter v. Beblow'' and ''Kerr v. Baranow''.) | ||
Let's use another example to explain things. | Let's use another example to explain things. | ||
