2 total
Unjust enrichment claim granted; joint family venture found and value surviving monetary remedy awarded.
The applicant and respondent were in a romantic relationship and lived together at a property solely owned by the respondent.
The respondent provided the down payment, while the applicant contributed significant unpaid labour to renovate the property.
After the parties separated, the respondent sold the property and retained the net proceeds.
The applicant brought a claim for unjust enrichment.
The court found that the applicant's labour conferred a benefit on the respondent with a corresponding deprivation and no juristic reason.
The court concluded the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and awarded the applicant a monetary remedy calculated on a value surviving basis, entitling him to half of the adjusted net proceeds of the sale.
The court granted leave to amend the claim to $200,000 and struck the jury notice.
The plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim to limit damages to $200,000 (the statutory minimum insurance limit) and continue the action under simplified procedure.
The defendant insurer opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and that the loss of the right to a jury trial constituted non-compensable prejudice.
The court granted the amendment, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate non-compensable prejudice and that the defendant's own pleading acknowledged the $200,000 limit and simplified procedure applicability.
The jury notice was struck as a necessary consequence of proceeding under simplified procedure.
