Suzy Johal

The respondent brought a claim for unjust enrichment to recover money she paid to acquire and renovate a house registered in the appellants' names.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent, finding unjust enrichment and awarding her $221,914.11.

The appellants appealed, arguing that summary judgment was inappropriate given conflicting evidence regarding the parties' agreement and that the motion judge's reasons were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment, finding that the motion judge failed to adequately explain how she resolved conflicts in evidence, made insufficient credibility findings, and failed to properly analyze the equities and mutual benefits exchanged between the parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the return of funds she invested in a property purchased with her sister and brother-in-law.

The plaintiff provided the entire purchase price and contributed to renovations, but the property was registered solely in the defendants' names.

The court found that the defendants were unjustly enriched and failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff $221,914.11, representing her total investment in the property.