Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-01-2014, 10:50 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 70
chapter2 is on a distinguished road
Default Unjust Enrichment Claims - Game Changer

A good read.
To determine whether the parties have, in fact, been engaged in a joint family venture, the particular circumstances of each particular relationship must be taken into account. This is a question of fact and must be assessed by having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, including factors relating to mutual effort, economic integration, actual intent and priority of the family. The pooling of effort and team work, the decision to have and raise children together, and the length of the relationship may all point towards the extent to which the parties have formed a true partnership and jointly worked towards important mutual goals. The use of parties’ funds entirely for family purposes or where one spouse takes on all, or a greater proportion, of the domestic labour, freeing the other spouse from those responsibilities and enabling him or her to pursue activities in the paid workforce, may also indicate a pooling of resources. The more extensive the integration of the couple’s finances, economic interests and economic wellbeing, the more likely it is that they have engaged in a joint family venture. The actual intentions of the parties, either express or inferred from their conduct, must be given considerable weight. Their conduct may show that they intended the domestic and professional spheres of their lives to be part of a larger, common venture, but may also conversely negate the existence of a joint family venture, or support the conclusion that particular assets were to be held independently. Another consideration is whether and to what extent the parties have given priority to the family in their decision making, and whether there has been detrimental reliance on the relationship, by one or both of the parties, for the sake of the family. This may occur where one party leaves the workforce for a period of time to raise children; relocates for the benefit of the other party’s career; foregoes career or educational advancement for the benefit of the family or relationship; or accepts underemployment in order to balance the financial and domestic needs of the family unit. The Supreme Court of Canada has annunciated a new interpretation of unjust enrichment arising from a set of facts that they label a "Joint Family Venture." It is suggested, whether the family is a married couple or a common-law couple, that if they have lived together for a fairly substantial period of time and during that time one spouse has accumulated greater wealth or more property than the other, the common law (or equity) is now interpreted to say there will be a remedy when one spouse has been "unjustly impoverished" by the termination of the relationship and the other spouse has been "unjustly enriched."
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-08-2014, 09:45 PM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,229
blinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura about
Default

Opinions, please:

Would it be reasonable to say that two parties, with children, who cohabited for many years and then went on to legally marry meet the criteria for joint family venture as far as 'intentions'?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-10-2014, 10:11 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 70
chapter2 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blinkandimgone View Post
Opinions, please:

Would it be reasonable to say that two parties, with children, who cohabited for many years and then went on to legally marry meet the criteria for joint family venture as far as 'intentions'?
My opinion would be yes. I was CL for 7 years, then married for 5 with two kids. I would say that was a joint family venture with intention.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-10-2014, 11:24 AM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,229
blinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura about
Default

Thank you C2!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unjust enrichment - which court? -clean hands? Strider22 Common Law Issues 4 06-09-2012 08:18 PM
unjust enrichment HappyMomma Financial Issues 5 04-17-2012 09:51 PM
Unjust Enrichment sadandrippedoff Financial Issues 6 10-29-2011 03:06 AM
Child Support Arrears & Unjust Enrichment??? MaggieT Financial Issues 3 08-11-2009 06:29 PM
Unjust enrichment / spousal support claim?? mom22galz Common Law Issues 14 06-20-2006 09:36 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:48 PM.