ABSTRACT
The doctrine of unjust enrichment is now familiar in Canadian jurisprudence. It has appeared most frequently in cases involving disputes between persons who either have been married, or have co-habited in marriage-like arrangements. Spousal relationships, and those "tantamount to spousal", encourage reliance upon decency of behavior—including decency of economic behaviour—of the other partner, and hence a peculiar consequential vulnerability if that reliance is disappointed. If the courts are to afford a remedy in situations where that vulnerability has been exploited, they must establish an evidentiary basis for their actions, on whatever theory they are operating. Even if the policy choice in favour of a proprietary remedy for generalized unjust enrichment is justified in respect of this issue, there is still a problem if the remedy is to be a constructive trust. The practical issue which was resolved by the imposition of a constructive trust was whether the plaintiff could participate in an extraordinary increase in the value of "home farm".
