A former cohabiting partner sought half of the $410,000 increase in equity in the respondent’s home on the basis of unjust enrichment and an alleged joint family venture.
The court applied the framework from Kerr v. Baranow and assessed mutual effort, economic integration, actual intent, and priority of the family.
It found the parties maintained largely separate finances, had no children, and did not integrate their economic lives or demonstrate an intention to share property.
Most of the increase in equity was attributable to market forces rather than joint effort, and the applicant’s limited contributions, including a $5,000 payment toward the mortgage, were found to fall within the parties’ arrangement to share living expenses.
The court concluded that neither a joint family venture nor unjust enrichment was established.
