Restitution
Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust
Pettkus, Garland, Kerr — three elements and the joint family venture.
Pettkus v Becker (1980) established the three-element test for unjust enrichment in Canadian law: enrichment, corresponding deprivation, absence of juristic reason. The framework has been refined in Garland v Consumers Gas (2004) on the third element and Kerr v Baranow (2011) on cohabitation cases.
Where the elements are met, the remedy is typically a monetary award. A constructive trust is reserved for cases where a monetary award is inadequate and the plaintiff's contribution links to specific property. In cohabitation cases, the joint family venture analysis (mutual effort, economic integration, actual intent, priority of the family) governs valuation.
Key principles
- Three elementsEnrichment + corresponding deprivation + absence of juristic reason.
- Juristic reasonGarland: established categories first; if none, plaintiff has prima facie case; defendant can rebut by showing reason.
- Joint family ventureMutual effort, economic integration, actual intent, priority of the family.
- Constructive trustReserved for cases where monetary remedy is inadequate and contribution links to specific property.