The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of unjust enrichment and a constructive trust against properties owned by the defendants, after $750,000 was fraudulently obtained by one defendant and deposited into the corporate account of another.
The court considered whether the recipient defendant's knowledge of the fraud was relevant to the unjust enrichment claim.
The court held that while the plaintiff does not have to prove knowledge, the defendant's lack of knowledge is relevant evidence for the defence of juristic reason.
A mini-trial was ordered to determine the defendant's knowledge and whether a juristic reason existed.