The applicants brought an application seeking declaratory relief requiring the respondent to contribute 50% of the carrying costs for a residential subdivision mortgage, relying on doctrines of unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and subrogation.
The respondent argued that the contractual agreements limited its investment and contained a mandatory arbitration clause.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the contractual terms provided a juristic reason for any alleged enrichment and explicitly ousted the court's jurisdiction in favour of arbitration.
Costs were awarded to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis.
