Comeau v. Boudreau Estate, (1999) 179 N.S.R.(2d) 186 (ProbCt)

• Judge: Haliburton, J.
• Court: Probate Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: January 27, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1999), 179 N.S.R.(2d) 186 (ProbCt)

Comeau v. Boudreau Estate (1999), 179 N.S.R.(2d) 186 (ProbCt);

    553 A.P.R. 186

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.004

Louise Comeau (plaintiff) v. Estate of Clifford Boudreau by its executor Gary Stuart (defendant)

(No. 2677)

Indexed As: Comeau v. Boudreau Estate

Nova Scotia Probate Court

Haliburton, J.

June 21, 1999.

Summary:

Comeau sought one-half of Boudreau's estate on the basis of constructive trust, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit for services performed by Comeau during a 15 year relationship.

The Nova Scotia Probate Court allowed the claim for unjust enrichment and awarded Comeau $16,000.

Executors and Administrators - Topic 5700

Actions by and against representatives - Evidence - Claim by or against estate - Corroboration requirement - Comeau sought one-half of Boudreau's estate on the basis of, inter alia, unjust enrichment for services performed by Comeau for Boudreau during a 15 year relationship - The estate argued that Comeau could not recover a judgment "against the estate" unless her evidence was corroborated in material particulars (Evidence Act, s. 45) - The Nova Scotia Probate Court held that s. 45 did not bar a claim for unjust enrich­ment - A claim for unjust enrichment did not arise from any agreement or implied contract, nor did it arise from any ac­know­ledgment or admission by the bene­fi­ciary of that enrichment - See paragraphs 15 to 17.

Restitution - Topic 62

Unjust enrichment - General - What consti­tutes - Comeau sought one-half of Boudreau's estate on the basis of, inter alia, unjust enrichment for services per­formed by Comeau for Boudreau during a 15 year relationship - They lived together for 14.5 years in Boudreau's home - Comeau did the principal household chores - She also did the gardening and some carpentry work - The parties did not com­bine their resources or make joint invest­ments - They held property separately - They shared expenses for groceries, the electrical bill, etc. and shared tasks such as painting the house and cutting firewood - The Nova Scotia Probate Court allowed the claim for unjust enrichment - Because Comeau's efforts could not be traced to any particular property, the court made a monetary award of $16,000 ($100/month for 14.5 years) - See paragraphs 15 to 20.

Restitution - Topic 101

Unjust enrichment - Bars - General - [See Executors and Admin­istrators - Topic 5700 ].

Restitution - Topic 124

Unjust enrichment - Remedies - Damages - [See Restitution - Topic 62 ].

Restitution - Topic 782

Benefit acquired from the plaintiff - Re-covery based on quantum meruit - Condi­tions precedent - [See Restitution - Topic 784 ].

Restitution - Topic 784

Benefit acquired from the plaintiff - Re-covery based on quantum meruit - Work performed or goods provided - Comeau sought one-half of Boudreau's estate on the basis of, inter alia, quantum meruit for services performed by Comeau for Boudreau during a 15 year relationship - The Nova Scotia Probate Court dismissed the claim for quantum meruit where Comeau could not establish the existence of a contract, either actual or implied - See paragraphs 13 and 14.

Restitution - Topic 788

Benefit acquired from the plaintiff - Re­covery based on quantum meruit - Bars - [See Restitution - Topic 784 ].

Cases Noticed:

Kelly v. Bourn Estate (1981), 45 N.S.R.(2d) 167; 86 A.P.R. 167 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Burgess Estate, Re (1964), 4 N.S.R. 1965-69 361 (S.C. In Banco), refd to. [para. 13].

O'Connell Estate, Re (1980), 44 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 83 A.P.R. 181 (Prob. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980; 150 N.R. 1; 23 B.C.A.C. 81; 39 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Evidence Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 154, sect. 45 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Richard W.P. Murphy, for the plaintiff;

Patricia E. Caldwell, Q.C., for the defend­ant.

This action was heard at Digby, N.S., on January 27, 1999, before Haliburton, J., of the Nova Scotia Probate Court, who delivered the following decision on June 21, 1999.