Unjust enrichment is an independent cause of action whereby the plaintiff seeks either a monetary or proprietary award against the defendant. The basis for the claim is that the defendant was enriched at the plaintiff’s expense without juristic reason.
“Unjust enrichment” is a very evocative legal phrase. The use of the term “unjust” tells us that something important is happening that merits our attention, and indeed that is the case.
Many clients intuitively know they have been wronged. However, what feels like a meritorious claim sometimes has no readily apparent basis in law. In some instances, the courts have historically addressed these moral claims by employing principles of "equity" to give deserving parties a remedy. One such tool employed by the courts is the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
An individual who seeks to have a will admitted to probate begins proceedings by applying for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee with a will. A person opposed to the will being admitted to probate need only file an objection (or a caveat as it is still called in some provinces).
A fundamental proposition of the common law with its own impressive Latin maxim (Nemo dat quod non habet) is that one cannot pass title to property one doesn’t own.
Senior lawyer discusses gifts given by a person during their lifetime with the intent to thwart their spouse's rights under the Family Law Act. Included in this is an analysis of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act and the case called Stone v. Stone.
One of the most fundamental principles of Canadian corporate law is that a corporation has a legal personality distinct from its shareholders. At common law, shareholders were precluded from bringing their own action in respect of a wrong done to the corporation. Even majority or controlling shareholders had no personal cause of action for a wrong done to the corporation.
In our day and age, elderly people often place their children as joint tenants on their bank accounts and other like assets. In this video, the lawyers discuss the law and address issues like the presumption of a resulting trust and the presumption of advancement.
Subject to certain exceptions, as a general rule, only an executor, administer and/or trustee of an estate or trust has standing to commence proceedings on behalf of the estate or trust. While this general rule is one of long-standing, in some situations it may effectuate an inequitable result.
Courts are generally loath to permit “execution before judgment”. The simple reason is that a plaintiff has not yet proven their case against the defendant. Tying up a defendant’s assets pending a trial that may be a couple years away may cause an inequitable result if the defendant is ultimately successful in showing that a plaintiff’s claim is unmeritorious. The freezing order could also make the defendant unable to defend itself or result in a “forced” settlement on terms that the defendant would not have otherwise agreed to.