Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine in Ontario law aimed at remedying situations where one party derives a measurable benefit at another party’s expense without any valid legal justification. It differs from causes of action like breach of contract or tort, which typically require either a broken promise or a wrongful act. With unjust enrichment, liability can arise even if no malicious conduct occurred and no formal agreement was signed—so long as one side is enriched, the other is correspondingly deprived, and there is no recognized legal reason for that enrichment to remain.
The Underlying Principle
The foundation of unjust enrichment lies in the idea that “no one should be allowed to profit at another’s expense in circumstances the law deems unfair.” This expands legal protection beyond typical claims where wrongdoing is explicitly alleged. For instance, a plaintiff might have made financial contributions or provided unpaid labour in good faith, expecting some reciprocal benefit. If that expectation goes unmet—leaving the defendant materially better off—the doctrine of unjust enrichment can step in to ensure fairness. Hence, the heart of this cause of action is to prevent a defendant from retaining what justice forbids them to keep.
Historical and Equitable Roots
English chancery courts historically dealt with cases that fell outside the boundaries of strict common law forms of action. They focused on moral fairness and equity, developing doctrines like constructive trusts and equitable liens. Unjust enrichment shares these equitable origins, empowering Ontario judges to craft flexible solutions—ranging from monetary restitution to constructive ownership stakes in property. This ensures that legal formalities do not overshadow the broader objective of restoring balance and discouraging unscrupulous retention of another’s contributions.
Ontario courts see unjust enrichment claims in diverse scenarios, often where standard legal remedies prove insufficient. The overarching theme is that the plaintiff conferred a benefit without intending a gift or contractual arrangement, resulting in an unfair windfall for the defendant.
Domestic and Family Law Contexts
One prominent area is family or domestic relationships, particularly those involving common-law spouses. For example, a couple may cohabit for years; one partner pays household expenses, renovates the home, or supports the other’s business ventures. If they separate, the partner who contributed gains no contractual right to a share unless documented. Yet, having sacrificed time or money, that partner may be left empty-handed, while the other remains enriched. In such cases, an unjust enrichment claim can secure compensation or a property interest—often via a constructive trust over the home or an award reflecting financial inputs.
Illustrative Examples
Home Improvements: One spouse invests significant labour or finances upgrading the other’s property, anticipating a joint future.
Joint Ventures Without Paperwork: A partner manages an enterprise or invests capital into farmland titled solely in the other’s name, only to be sidelined after breakup.
Business Dealings
In commercial settings, informal transactions or overlooked details sometimes create imbalances. A supplier might deliver goods based on handshake agreements or partial commitments. If no valid contract emerges, but the recipient enjoys the fruits of these goods or services, the supplier can invoke unjust enrichment to recover the value provided. Similarly, failed joint ventures or friendly loans without repayment terms can lead to an enrichment–deprivation dynamic that equity addresses.
Examples in Business
Unpaid Services: A consultant invests hours in a project anticipating a formal retainer, but the company claims no contract was finalized.
Erroneous Transfers: Overpayments or wire transfers made to the wrong account that the recipient refuses to return, even though they recognize the mistake.
Mistaken Payments
Mistaken payments represent another frequent catalyst. If a bank accidentally deposits funds into the wrong person’s account or an individual double-pays an invoice, the recipient is unjustly enriched upon realizing the error yet declining to remedy it. The law insists that a benefit acquired by mistake must be restored, even absent any wrongdoing on the enriched party’s part. The aim is to prevent a windfall scenario where a defendant knowingly holds on to money that rightfully belongs to someone else.
Degrees of Mistake
Simple Overpayment: Inadvertently sending $1,000 instead of $100.
Duplicated Bank Transfers: Automatic payroll or e-transfer initiated twice.
Allocations to the Wrong Beneficiary: Estate or insurance pay-outs misdirected to a non-entitled party.
Unjust enrichment is, by nature, an equitable remedy—courts strive for a just outcome, filling gaps where conventional legal doctrines cannot fully address the dispute. Its moral compass is the principle that “retaining what one has not earned can be as offensive to justice as actively wronging someone.” This flexible approach lets judges:
Recognize Unique Factual Contexts: Equity is not bound by rigid formulas; thus, each unjust enrichment claim is examined on a case-by-case basis.
Craft Tailored Remedies: Monetary restitution may suffice in some cases; in others, a constructive trust or disgorgement of profits is more suitable.
The Role of Conscience
Equity historically looks to the parties’ “consciences,” ensuring no one retains a benefit that conscience cannot sanction. If a defendant realizes they are enjoying an advantage at the expense of someone’s labour or resources, equity compels them to rectify that imbalance unless a valid legal excuse exists. This stands in contrast to purely fault-based claims—like negligence—where establishing wrongdoing is central.
Interaction With Statutory Provisions
Though not codified in a single Ontario statute, unjust enrichment works in tandem with specific legislative schemes. For instance, the Family Law Act can mention the equitable distribution of property, prompting courts to evaluate whether a direct statutory route or an unjust enrichment analysis is more appropriate. In estate contexts, claimants left out of a will sometimes rely on unjust enrichment if they contributed financially to the deceased’s property, with no written testamentary recognition. The synergy between equity and statute fosters comprehensive solutions that reflect fairness and legislative intent.
Modern Emphasis on Fairness
Over recent decades, Ontario courts (and the Supreme Court of Canada more broadly) have intensified the role of unjust enrichment to cover grey areas in property sharing, restitution, and intangible contributions. As social norms shift—recognizing the value of domestic labour, for instance—unjust enrichment emerges as a potent means to correct or offset exploitative imbalances. Notably, it can address relationships or transactions that do not meet the formalities of contract law but clearly show that someone was conferred a benefit they should not equitably retain.
Intersections With Statutory Frameworks
Although it remains primarily a common law cause of action, unjust enrichment intersects with family, estate, and business statutes:
Family Law Act: Addresses property division among spouses but can leave gaps for common-law partners or cross-household contributions.
Succession Law Reform Act: Might come into play when one heir is enriched without justification at another’s expense during an estate distribution.
Business Legislation: Corporate or partnership legislation might not fully address contributions made outside formal directorship or share allocations, leading to an unjust enrichment remedy.
Global Influence and Comparisons
Canadian jurisprudence on unjust enrichment has gained recognition internationally for its clarity and structured approach—particularly the trilogy of Supreme Court decisions refining the “absence of juristic reason” test. Comparative studies reveal that while various jurisdictions label the remedy as restitution or quantum meruit, the underlying impetus—no one should enjoy another’s expense lacking a legitimate rationale—remains widely accepted. Thus, Ontario’s model influences broader common law discussions on restitutionary claims, especially in familial or quasi-contractual contexts.
To succeed, a plaintiff in Ontario must demonstrate:
Enrichment: The defendant gained a tangible or intangible benefit.
Corresponding Deprivation: The plaintiff suffered a parallel loss or expended resources to the defendant’s advantage.
Absence of Juristic Reason: No valid legal ground—like a contract, gift, or statute—authorizes the defendant’s continued retention.
1. Enrichment
Enrichment can manifest in various ways—financial windfalls, enhanced property value, or even intangible benefits like receiving free labour that spares the defendant from hiring someone else. The law also considers indirect gains, such as a defendant’s liability or costs being reduced because the plaintiff performed tasks on their behalf. Ultimately, the focus rests on whether the defendant’s position is measurably improved.
Real-World Illustrations
Caretaking: A caregiver moves in to assist an elderly person, saving them substantial nursing costs. If no compensation is provided, the caretaker may argue the homeowner was unjustly enriched.
Renovations: One spouse pays for or physically renovates the other’s home, raising market value significantly.
Double Payment: A contractor accidentally receives two cheques for the same invoice. The extra payment is an undeniable enrichment.
2. Corresponding Deprivation
A crucial tenet is that the defendant’s gain should mirror the plaintiff’s loss—someone cannot be “unjustly enriched” if the benefit arises from a third party or from random external events. The plaintiff’s deprivation can be direct (they parted with money, materials, or labour) or indirect (they forwent an alternative profit or opportunity to assist the defendant). Courts adopt a broad approach to ensure no one can claim they gained purely by happenstance if the plaintiff’s resources or energies underpinned that gain.
Indicators of Deprivation
Financial Outlays: Receipts showing the plaintiff bought supplies or covered bills that benefitted the defendant.
Documented Labour: Time sheets or witness testimony confirming extensive work done, bypassing normal wages or reimbursements.
Forgone Opportunities: Evidence the plaintiff diverted time from profitable ventures to enrich the defendant, incurring a personal opportunity cost.
3. Absence of Juristic Reason
Finally, to prove the absence of a juristic reason, plaintiffs must show that no legal or equitable rationale justifies the defendant keeping the gain. The analysis is generally twofold:
Established Categories: Courts examine if a recognized legal structure—contract, gift, statutory right, or other well-defined category—justifies the enrichment. If such a structure is found, the claim fails.
Residual Injustice: If no formal justification emerges, the defendant can still argue broader policy defences. However, the burden effectively shifts, compelling them to demonstrate strong reasons (like public policy or fairness) to uphold the enrichment.
This ensures that not every instance of receiving a benefit yields liability—only those where fundamental fairness dictates the defendant must relinquish or compensate for what was received.
Though a plaintiff might satisfy the three-part test, defendants can invoke certain defences:
Contract or Gift
A formal agreement may demonstrate that the plaintiff intended the benefit as compensation or a free grant. Alternatively, the defendant can argue the plaintiff’s contributions were purely donative—backed by evidence of donative intent.
Equitable Set-Off
If the defendant provided valuable benefits to the plaintiff, offsetting the latter’s alleged deprivation, the net effect may not be unjust.
Public Policy or Statute
In some scenarios, legislation or regulatory frameworks explicitly permit or require certain enrichments—for instance, unemployment benefits or government-ordered payments—that preclude an unjust enrichment finding.
Courts scrutinize these defences carefully. If the defendant’s position rests on ambiguous or contradictory claims about a supposed “gift” or “exchange,” it typically fails. Clear, documented consent is key to negating the “absence of juristic reason.”
Restitutionary Awards
Restitution often aims to compensate for the difference between the defendant’s gain and the plaintiff’s outlay. This might entail:
Calculating the Value of Services: Quantifying labour or time at fair market rates.
Repaying Mistaken Transfers: Returning funds transferred in error.
Reimbursing Investment Costs: Covering expenses the plaintiff invested in property or business improvements that increased the defendant’s wealth.
The objective is to restore equilibrium, preventing the defendant from continuing to benefit at the plaintiff’s expense.
Constructive Trusts
When monetary damages prove inadequate—particularly in family law contexts where claimants contributed significantly to real property—courts may impose a constructive trust over the asset. This equitable device declares that the defendant holds part (or all) of the asset in trust for the plaintiff, reflecting the plaintiff’s intangible but substantial contributions. It grants the plaintiff a proportionate ownership interest and may allow them to share in any future sale proceeds or rental income.
Disgorgement of Profits
Disgorgement applies in scenarios where the defendant leveraged the plaintiff’s efforts or funds to reap greater rewards (e.g., stock profits). Instead of limiting the plaintiff to the initial contribution’s value, the court might order the defendant to surrender the net gain—ensuring the plaintiff receives an appropriate share of profits or returns stemming from their input.
Note: While unjust enrichment claims typically yield restitution or constructive trusts, alternative remedies like equitable liens or accounts of profits can also appear if the unique facts demand. Courts exhibit flexibility, selecting whichever remedy best rectifies the unfair benefit retained.
If you suspect you have contributed labour, money, or property that unjustly enriched another, whether in a personal relationship, business deal, or estate matter, Grigoras Law is here to help. We bring a thorough, evidence-based approach to proving enrichment, corresponding deprivation, and lack of juristic reason. Our firm is dedicated to:
Disclaimer: The answers provided in this FAQ section are general in nature and should not be relied upon as formal legal advice. Each individual case is unique, and a separate analysis is required to address specific context and fact situations. For comprehensive guidance tailored to your situation, we welcome you to contact our expert team.
Unjust enrichment is a legal doctrine that prevents one party from benefiting at another’s expense without a legitimate reason. To successfully claim unjust enrichment, you must prove three essential elements: enrichment, corresponding deprivation, and lack of juristic reason.
Enrichment: The first step is to demonstrate that the defendant received a benefit. This benefit can be tangible, such as money or property, or intangible, like services or opportunities. The benefit must be significant and measurable.
Corresponding Deprivation: Next, you must show that you suffered a loss or deprivation that corresponds to the defendant’s enrichment. This means there is a direct connection between the benefit gained by the defendant and the loss you incurred. For example, if you provided services or improvements to someone else’s property without compensation, your loss corresponds to their gain.
Lack of Juristic Reason: Finally, you need to establish that there is no juristic reason for the enrichment. This involves a two-step analysis:
Successfully proving these elements can lead to remedies such as monetary compensation or a proprietary award, like a constructive trust. Consulting with an experienced unjust enrichment lawyer can help you navigate the complexities of these claims and build a strong case.
Absolutely. Unjust enrichment typically applies when no binding agreement exists—or the existing agreement fails to address the dispute. If the defendant was enriched at your expense, and no valid legal basis (like contract or gift) explains their retention of that benefit, you can claim unjust enrichment.
Yes, you can claim unjust enrichment even if there was a verbal agreement, but the success of your claim will depend on the specific circumstances and the ability to prove the elements of unjust enrichment. Verbal agreements can complicate the process, but they do not preclude a claim.
Proving Enrichment and Deprivation: You must demonstrate that the defendant received a benefit and that you suffered a corresponding deprivation. This often involves providing evidence of the contributions you made, such as services rendered or improvements to property, and showing how these benefited the defendant.
Lack of Juristic Reason: You also need to prove that there is no juristic reason for the enrichment. This means showing that the verbal agreement does not constitute a valid contract or gift, and that there was no legal obligation for you to confer the benefit. Courts often scrutinize the context of verbal agreements to determine if they justify the enrichment.
Evidence: Collecting and presenting evidence is crucial in cases involving verbal agreements. This can include witness testimonies, written communications (like emails or text messages), financial records, and any other documentation that supports your claim. The more evidence you have, the stronger your case will be.
While verbal agreements can make unjust enrichment claims more challenging, they are not insurmountable. An experienced lawyer can help you gather the necessary evidence, present a compelling case, and navigate the complexities associated with verbal agreements. Legal guidance is essential to ensure that all aspects of your claim are thoroughly addressed.
Several defences can be used to counter an unjust enrichment claim, each aimed at demonstrating that the enrichment was justified or that returning the benefit would be inequitable. Common defences include:
Change of Position: This defence asserts that the defendant has changed their position in reliance on the benefit received, making it unfair to require repayment. For example, if the defendant spent the money received on necessary expenses, they may argue that they cannot return the benefit without suffering undue hardship.
Estoppel: Estoppel prevents a party from asserting something contrary to what they previously represented if the other party relied on the initial representation to their detriment. If the claimant initially indicated that the benefit was a gift or agreed not to seek repayment, the defendant might use estoppel to argue against the unjust enrichment claim.
Statutory Defences: Certain statutes provide defences against unjust enrichment claims. For instance, limitation periods set by statutes like the Limitations Act, 2002, may bar claims that are not filed within a specific timeframe. The Real Property Limitations Act may apply for claims related to interests in land, providing a ten-year period.
Juristic Reason: The defendant can argue that there was a valid juristic reason for the enrichment, such as a contract, gift, or statutory obligation. They may also present evidence of mutual benefits exchanged, asserting that the enrichment was part of a reciprocal arrangement.
Public Policy Considerations: Courts may consider broader public policy implications when deciding unjust enrichment cases. Defendants can argue that requiring repayment would violate public policy or lead to unjust outcomes.
Effectively employing these defences requires a thorough understanding of the law and the specific circumstances of the case. Consulting with a lawyer who specializes in unjust enrichment can help in crafting a robust defence strategy, ensuring that all relevant factors are considered and effectively presented in court.
Not necessarily. Unjust enrichment does not require proof of wrongdoing or malice. A party can be “unjustly enriched” merely by receiving a benefit they are not entitled to keep. Courts focus on whether the enrichment and deprivation occurred absent a juristic reason, rather than moral blameworthiness.
Unjust enrichment often intersects with various other areas of law, reflecting its broad applicability in ensuring fairness and preventing unjust gain. Key intersections include:
Family Law: In family law, unjust enrichment is frequently invoked in disputes between common-law partners or unmarried couples. When such relationships end, one partner may claim unjust enrichment if they contributed significantly to property or finances without receiving a fair share. This principle helps ensure equitable distribution when statutory property division rules do not apply, as seen in married couples.
Commercial Law: In the business context, unjust enrichment claims arise when one party benefits from another’s services or goods without proper compensation. Examples include scenarios where verbal agreements or misunderstandings lead to one party providing valuable contributions without a formal contract. This principle ensures that businesses are compensated fairly for their contributions and efforts.
Property Law: Property disputes frequently involve unjust enrichment claims, especially when one party improves or maintains property owned by another. For instance, tenants who make significant improvements to a rental property may seek compensation if the landlord benefits from increased property value without reimbursing the tenant.
Contract Law: Unjust enrichment can act as a remedy when formal contracts are absent, void, or unenforceable. If one party confers a benefit based on an invalid or non-existent contract, they may claim unjust enrichment to recover the value of the benefit provided.
Estate Law: Unjust enrichment claims may also arise in estate disputes, particularly when one family member or heir benefits at the expense of another. For example, if one heir unfairly benefits from the estate through undue influence or misrepresentation, other heirs may claim unjust enrichment to seek equitable distribution.
Understanding these intersections is crucial for effectively addressing unjust enrichment claims. Consulting with a lawyer experienced in multiple areas of law can provide comprehensive legal support, ensuring that all relevant factors are considered and the most effective strategy is employed. This holistic approach helps achieve fair and just outcomes in complex legal disputes.
Quantum meruit is a specific remedy that compensates someone for services rendered. It can arise within an unjust enrichment claim when the plaintiff performed work for which they expected payment. Essentially, quantum meruit calculates the fair market value of those services to prevent the defendant from unfairly benefitting without compensation.
The standard two-year limitation period generally applies, starting from the date you discovered (or should have discovered) the factual basis for your claim. In family contexts, the timeline may overlap with family law procedures. Prompt legal advice ensures you meet deadlines and preserve evidence for constructing a robust case.
Yes. Canadian courts recognize that domestic work or caregiving can confer a valuable benefit on the recipient, sparing them expenses or enabling them to pursue income-generating activities. If no legitimate agreement or gift was intended, such intangible contributions can form the basis of an unjust enrichment lawsuit, particularly where the plaintiff’s efforts helped the defendant build assets or advance professionally.
Grigoras Law provides smart, strategic counsel in civil litigation, business law, and appeals across Ontario.
Smart, Strategic Counsel.
GRIGORAS LAW - Civil Litigation and Business Lawyers Toronto © 2025 All Right Reserved
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service
