Pettkus v Becker

Becker, an unmarried cohabitant who contributed labour and capital to her partner's farm and beekeeping business, was awarded a half-interest by way of constructive trust. The SCC adopted the three-element test for unjust enrichment that governs Canadian restitution law.

Becker and Pettkus lived together unmarried for nearly 20 years. Becker worked the farm and contributed to the business; Pettkus held all assets in his name. On separation, Becker had no statutory matrimonial-property claim.

(1) What is the test for unjust enrichment? (2) Is the constructive trust available as a remedy?

Test established. Constructive trust granted; Becker awarded half interest.

To establish unjust enrichment: (1) enrichment of the defendant; (2) corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff; (3) absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment. Where these elements are met and the plaintiff has contributed labour or property linked to specific assets, a constructive trust is available as a proprietary remedy.

Dickson J adopted the unjust-enrichment doctrine that had developed in Canadian and Commonwealth case law. The constructive trust is not a vehicle of arbitrary discretion but a remedy responsive to specific elements. The link between contribution and asset must be sufficient to justify a proprietary (rather than monetary) remedy.

Foundational case for Canadian restitution. Garland v Consumers Gas (2004) refined the third element; Kerr v Baranow (2011) recast the framework for cohabitation cases as a "joint family venture" analysis. Pettkus remains the touchstone.

Pettkus v Becker, [1980] 2 SCR 834, 1980 CanLII 22 (SCC).

Laskin CJ, Martland J, Ritchie J, Pigeon J, Dickson J, Beetz J, Estey J, McIntyre J, Chouinard J