Here's the situation
1)live in Ontario cohabited 2 1/2 years
2) Claim against me unjust enrichment.
3) I've owned house 23 years paid mortgage and all bills and utilities throughout cohabitation
4) Applicant paid for some groceries and performed various household duties cleaning, laundry, etc
5) Applicant also assisted in painting house 75%. I paid for all materials. House needs repainting now. Very quick job poor workmanship
6)Painting not requested by me but done at applicants insistence
6) Applicant claiming unjust enrichment against me and thereby interest in home and won't leave
7) Came to agreement in March 2009. Court ordered Occupancy Rent as per agreement.Applicant in arrears 98% of money still owing
8)Claim 15% interest in home or $50 000
9) Finances always kept separate
10) No children of relationship
11) House depreciated in value over length of cohabitation due to market trends
12) No common intention for interest in home or long term plans ever discussed or inferred by applicant or myself or mentioned in documents
13) Applicant moved in because she was being evicted from residence as friend not a partner
14) Applicants sources of income were child support for one child (adult now) and 1 year OSAP loans and grants as single mother
15) Applicant has not claimed remedy at which she is seeking
My question are these
1)Am I correct in assuming that in Ontario a person cannot claim a resulting trust unless they contribute to the acquisition or improvement of the property by financial means? (Hamilton v. Hamilton, 1996 CanLII 599) (ON C.A.)In this case a resulting trust would not apply?
2)In the case of a constructive trust, there must be both a threshold in the amount of the contribution that must be met as well as a duration of time to the relationship. My understanding is that in Ontario the minimum duration of the relationship is measured by the 3 years stated to reach the status of spouse in the FLA as a minimum length of the relationship to warrant a constructive trust award. Is this correct?
3) My understanding is also that in the case of a constructive trust the amount of the unjust enrichment is calculated on a quantum merit basis of the value of services received by both parties. If a monetary award is sufficient then a constructive trust is not an appropriate remedy and that an award in a constructive trust claim is given normally on value survived basis
4) Does that mean that if a monetary award is suitable (which is however unlikely I believe because I don't believe unjust enrichment will be found) and is minimal that a constructive trust award is not an option? Or can a constructive trust award be given as a monetary award award in a claim like this as a court settlement even though the law seems to suggest otherwise?
Bell v. Bailey, 2001 CanLII 11608 (ON C.A.)
36] The trial judge relied on Clark v. Vanderhoeven 1997 CanLII 12238 (ON S.C.), (1997), 28 R.F.L. (4th) 152 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)) as authority for the broad proposition that on a finding of a constructive trust the value of the trust can be converted into a monetary award and judgment issued accordingly. I accept that Marshman J. made a statement to that effect in Clark. However, the monetary award of $100,000 in that case was what the trial judge said was the value of the services received by the defendant. Thus, the trial judge’s comments about directly valuing the constructive trust interest of the defendant and converting it into a monetary award are obiter. In any case, in my view, the trial judge’s comments are not consistent with Peter v. Beblow.
[37] I should add that I accept that the value received calculation of a monetary award may, to some degree, reflect the extent to which the value of a particular asset was enhanced by the claimant’s direct and indirect contributions. See Nasser v. Mayer-Nasser 2000 CanLII 5654 (ON C.A.), (2000), 130 O.A.C. 52 (C.A.) (leave to appeal to S.C.C. dismissed, [2000] S.C.C.A. No. 206). This, however, is part of the value received analysis; it does not mean that a back-door route to a monetary award by first finding a constructive trust and then valuing the claimant’s constructive trust interest is justified.
6) What other options of remedy would there be in this claim then if neither a resulting trust or constructive trust would be an appropriate remedy?
7) Would the court deem it appropriate to consider the financial contribution of groceries by the applicant (Usually $200 a month) to be relevant when it's source was money provided by the father to support his child and money that was given and loaned to pay for education?
I am self represented and am somewhat confused by this. Any help would be greatly appreciated not just for myself but I'm sure for others
1)live in Ontario cohabited 2 1/2 years
2) Claim against me unjust enrichment.
3) I've owned house 23 years paid mortgage and all bills and utilities throughout cohabitation
4) Applicant paid for some groceries and performed various household duties cleaning, laundry, etc
5) Applicant also assisted in painting house 75%. I paid for all materials. House needs repainting now. Very quick job poor workmanship
6)Painting not requested by me but done at applicants insistence
6) Applicant claiming unjust enrichment against me and thereby interest in home and won't leave
7) Came to agreement in March 2009. Court ordered Occupancy Rent as per agreement.Applicant in arrears 98% of money still owing
8)Claim 15% interest in home or $50 000
9) Finances always kept separate
10) No children of relationship
11) House depreciated in value over length of cohabitation due to market trends
12) No common intention for interest in home or long term plans ever discussed or inferred by applicant or myself or mentioned in documents
13) Applicant moved in because she was being evicted from residence as friend not a partner
14) Applicants sources of income were child support for one child (adult now) and 1 year OSAP loans and grants as single mother
15) Applicant has not claimed remedy at which she is seeking
My question are these
1)Am I correct in assuming that in Ontario a person cannot claim a resulting trust unless they contribute to the acquisition or improvement of the property by financial means? (Hamilton v. Hamilton, 1996 CanLII 599) (ON C.A.)In this case a resulting trust would not apply?
2)In the case of a constructive trust, there must be both a threshold in the amount of the contribution that must be met as well as a duration of time to the relationship. My understanding is that in Ontario the minimum duration of the relationship is measured by the 3 years stated to reach the status of spouse in the FLA as a minimum length of the relationship to warrant a constructive trust award. Is this correct?
3) My understanding is also that in the case of a constructive trust the amount of the unjust enrichment is calculated on a quantum merit basis of the value of services received by both parties. If a monetary award is sufficient then a constructive trust is not an appropriate remedy and that an award in a constructive trust claim is given normally on value survived basis
4) Does that mean that if a monetary award is suitable (which is however unlikely I believe because I don't believe unjust enrichment will be found) and is minimal that a constructive trust award is not an option? Or can a constructive trust award be given as a monetary award award in a claim like this as a court settlement even though the law seems to suggest otherwise?
Bell v. Bailey, 2001 CanLII 11608 (ON C.A.)
36] The trial judge relied on Clark v. Vanderhoeven 1997 CanLII 12238 (ON S.C.), (1997), 28 R.F.L. (4th) 152 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)) as authority for the broad proposition that on a finding of a constructive trust the value of the trust can be converted into a monetary award and judgment issued accordingly. I accept that Marshman J. made a statement to that effect in Clark. However, the monetary award of $100,000 in that case was what the trial judge said was the value of the services received by the defendant. Thus, the trial judge’s comments about directly valuing the constructive trust interest of the defendant and converting it into a monetary award are obiter. In any case, in my view, the trial judge’s comments are not consistent with Peter v. Beblow.
[37] I should add that I accept that the value received calculation of a monetary award may, to some degree, reflect the extent to which the value of a particular asset was enhanced by the claimant’s direct and indirect contributions. See Nasser v. Mayer-Nasser 2000 CanLII 5654 (ON C.A.), (2000), 130 O.A.C. 52 (C.A.) (leave to appeal to S.C.C. dismissed, [2000] S.C.C.A. No. 206). This, however, is part of the value received analysis; it does not mean that a back-door route to a monetary award by first finding a constructive trust and then valuing the claimant’s constructive trust interest is justified.
6) What other options of remedy would there be in this claim then if neither a resulting trust or constructive trust would be an appropriate remedy?
7) Would the court deem it appropriate to consider the financial contribution of groceries by the applicant (Usually $200 a month) to be relevant when it's source was money provided by the father to support his child and money that was given and loaned to pay for education?
I am self represented and am somewhat confused by this. Any help would be greatly appreciated not just for myself but I'm sure for others
Comment