The appellant and respondent, who were unmarried cohabitants, decided to purchase a farm together.
Both signed the offer to purchase, but only the respondent signed the deed of sale.
For five years, the appellant contributed financially and through her labour to the farm's operation and improvement.
After they separated, the appellant brought a pro socio action seeking partition of the farm assets.
The trial judge found a tacit partnership existed and ordered partition.
The Court of Appeal reversed this, finding no partnership.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its findings of fact for those of the trial judge without identifying a determinative error.
The trial judge's finding that the parties intended to purchase the farm together was supported by the evidence and was not unreasonable.
