Understanding Constructive Trusts: Remedy for Unjust Enrichment

Constructive trusts are a legal remedy used to address unjust enrichment. This remedy is imposed on property owned by a party who has gained an unfair benefit at the expense of another party. In cases where the court finds that one party has been unjustly enriched, a constructive trust may be imposed to remedy the situation.
business

Constructive trusts are a legal remedy used to address unjust enrichment. This remedy is imposed on property owned by a party who has gained an unfair benefit at the expense of another party. In cases where the court finds that one party has been unjustly enriched, a constructive trust may be imposed to remedy the situation.

Constructive trusts were initially used in cases involving fiduciary relationships, such as those between trustees and beneficiaries. However, in the last quarter of the 20th century, constructive trusts began to be used as a remedy for unjust enrichment in non-fiduciary settings. In Pettkus v. Becker (“Pettkus”),  constructive trusts were established as a remedy for unjust enrichment in the context of cohabitation outside of marriage.

In Pettkus, Rosa Becker sued Lothar Pettkus for property they acquired while cohabiting. Pettkus’s initial promise to Becker not to share title in any property he bought was evidence. The Court ruled that over a 20-year partnership, the couple had worked hard to build several bee farms from nothing. The Court found Pettkus’s title in the assets unjustly enriched Becker’s donations. There was no “juristic justification” to leave the defendant’s legal ownership to all the accumulated assets unaffected by the plaintiff’s considerable donations, thus to do so would have been an unfair enrichment. The Court granted the plaintiff a constructive trust in a half share of all assets to recognize the plaintiff’s equitable stake in the property, to which the defendant alone possessed legal title.

To establish a constructive trust, the plaintiff must show that the defendant has been unjustly enriched, that the plaintiff has been deprived, and that there is no justifiable reason for the defendant’s enrichment. The plaintiff must also demonstrate a causal connection between the defendant’s property gain and the plaintiff’s deprivation. In addition, the plaintiff must show a direct link between their contributions and the property over which the constructive trust is sought.

Constructive trusts are a results-oriented remedy, primarily used when monetary recompense is not adequate to remedy the situation. If the court finds that a constructive trust is an appropriate remedy, the plaintiff may receive a personal restitutionary award (i.e., a restitutionary proprietary award). The plaintiff may also receive a portion of the joint family endeavour in money or be granted additional rights that result from the recognition of property rights.

Constructive trusts are a useful remedy in cases of unjust enrichment outside of fiduciary relationships. Recent cases, for example, demonstrate how constructive trusts can be used to address unjust enrichment in various circumstances. Although the principle of unjust enrichment does not define constructive trusts, they provide a useful remedy in cases where one party has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another.

Share:

More Posts

real-estate-agent-duties-ontario-signing-contract

Legal Duties of Real Estate Agents in Ontario: What Buyers and Sellers Need to Know

A real estate agent’s legal obligations go far beyond finding a buyer or showing properties. In Ontario, agents operate under TRESA, the Code of Ethics, fiduciary duties, and the general law of negligence and misrepresentation — all at once. This article explains what those obligations are, illustrated with real cases where agents were found liable for falling short of them.

Two people signing a contract representing the legal remedies available for breach of contract in Canadian law

Remedies for Breach of Contract in Canada: What You Can Claim

The most important question in any contract dispute is not whether there was a breach — it is what remedy the injured party can actually obtain. This article covers the full range of remedies for breach of contract in Canada: compensatory damages, specific performance, injunctions, gains-based recovery, and punitive damages, along with the limiting rules that govern each.

Man speaking into a microphone representing slander as oral defamation under Canadian law

Libel vs. Slander: The Key Differences and When Proof of Damage Is Required

Most defamation cases involve something written. But spoken words can be just as damaging to a reputation, and in the right circumstances they are fully actionable. This article explains slander, how it differs from libel, when proof of actual financial loss is required, and when the law dispenses with that requirement entirely.

Screen displaying social media platform icons representing online platform liability for defamatory reviews in Canadian law

Can You Sue Google for a Defamatory Review? What Canadian Law Says

A false review on Google Maps can reach thousands of people and stay there indefinitely. The person behind it may be anonymous and untraceable. Can you sue Google instead? Recent Canadian decisions in Thorpe v. Boakye and Jeffery v. Almusslat suggest the answer is increasingly yes, where the platform had notice, had control, and chose not to act.

Confidential consultation

09000 00000

65 Queen Street west, Suite 1240, toronto, Ontario M5H 2M5

Requeast a Consulastion

our team of experienced lawyers are at your service