The appellant appealed a family court judgment ordering him to pay the respondent $45,920.28 for loans and $10,500 for unjust enrichment.
The appellant argued that the monies advanced were co-mingled in a joint account and lost in day trading, and that unjust enrichment could not be established given both parties' contributions to their unmarried relationship.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual determinations regarding the loan and the unjust enrichment were amply supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.
