Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Property and Debt in Family Law Matters"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Line 196: Line 196:
''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 which 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 which 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 is one other case from the Supreme Court of Canada which is critical in understanding constructive trusts, a 1993 case called ''Peter v. Beblow''. To get a proper understanding of the law relating to constructive trusts, you should read both ''Pettkus v. Becker'' and ''Peter v. Beblow''.)
(There are two other case from the Supreme Court of Canada which is critical in understanding constructive trusts, a 1993 case called ''Peter v. Beblow'' and a 200 XXXXX . To get a proper understanding of the law relating to constructive trusts, you should read both ''Pettkus v. Becker'' and ''Peter v. Beblow''.)


Let's use another example to explain things.
Let's use another example to explain things.