Kerr v Baranow

Kerr restated the law of unjust enrichment in cohabitation cases. Where the parties have engaged in a joint family venture and the wealth accumulation is linked to that venture, the appropriate remedy is a monetary award proportionate to the contributions, not a constructive trust over a specific asset.

Kerr and Baranow cohabited for over 25 years in BC. On separation, Kerr sought a share of Baranow's wealth; he counterclaimed for the value of his caregiving after her stroke.

How are unjust-enrichment claims analysed in cohabitation cases?

Joint family venture framework adopted; remand for reassessment.

Where the unjust-enrichment elements are met and there has been a joint family venture, the appropriate remedy is a monetary award proportionate to the claimant's contributions to the accumulation of wealth, calculated on a value-survived (not quantum-meruit) basis. A constructive trust is reserved for cases where a monetary remedy is inadequate and the contribution is linked to specific property.

Cromwell J identified four indicia of a joint family venture: mutual effort, economic integration, actual intent, and priority of the family. Where these are present, the contributions are best valued by reference to the wealth accumulated during the relationship, not by hourly accounting.

Modern Canadian framework for cohabitee property claims. Largely supersedes the unfocused "value-received" analysis. Used in concert with Pettkus on the foundational unjust-enrichment elements.

Kerr v Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, [2011] 1 SCR 269.

McLachlin CJ, Binnie J, LeBel J, Deschamps J, Fish J, Abella J, Charron J, Rothstein J, Cromwell J