K.G.H. v. S.L.V., (2013) 563 A.R. 267 (QB)

• Judge: Jeffrey, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 04, 2013
• Citations: (2013), 563 A.R. 267 (QB);2013 ABQB 326

K.G.H. v. S.L.V. (2013), 563 A.R. 267 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. JN.089

K.G.H. (plaintiff) v. S.L.V. (defendant)

(FL01 04625; 2013 ABQB 326)

Indexed As: K.G.H. v. S.L.V.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Jeffrey, J.

June 4, 2013.

Summary:

KGH claimed that SLV was unjustly enriched as a result of their cohabiting, combining finances and sharing expenses for over 10 years. SLV disagreed as to the amount of the enrichment claimed. She maintained that there were juristic reasons for the enrichment, including the "cloak of secrecy" she accorded him in his matrimonial litigation with his ex-wife, EH, and that, as a policy reason, KGH should be denied recovery because of his discreditable conduct.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the claim, but set conditions on KGH's ability to access the award. The award to KGH would have been, but for his unclean hands, $107,000. Those funds were to be paid into court by SLV, and were not available to KGH until all claims brought by EH against the funds were determined.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Equity - Topic 1482

Equitable principles respecting relief - Clean hands doctrine - Application of - [See Restitution - Topic 64 ].

Family Law - Topic 1008

Common law, same-sex or adult interdependent relationships - Monetary awards - [See Restitution - Topic 64 ].

Restitution - Topic 64

Unjust enrichment - General - Juristic reason for enrichment - The plaintiff (KGH) claimed that the defendant (SLV) was unjustly enriched as a result of their cohabiting for over 10 years - SLV maintained that there were juristic reasons for the enrichment, including the "cloak of secrecy" she accorded him in his matrimonial litigation with his ex-wife, EH, and that, as a policy reason, KGH should be denied recovery on account of of his discreditable conduct - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the claim, but set conditions on KGH's ability to access the award - "Granting the relief KGH requests 'would enable him to achieve a dishonest purpose', to the extent that any of the enrichment in SLV's hands that KGH might now receive actually should be EH's. ... [I]t would be grievously inequitable to grant the claim without EH first having an opportunity to claim against those monies." - SLV was a willing and active party to the deception, and directly benefited from KGH's funds that were not diverted to EH - She should not be allowed to retain the benefit of her dishonest purpose - It would be similarly unjust to allow KGH to achieve his dishonest purpose - Although KGH had asked the court to grant him an equitable remedy, he had not come with clean hands - "Equity is always discretionary. I am not prepared to exercise that discretion in a way that may permit KGH to derive any advantage from his wrongs against EH and against the very system of justice he asks now come to his aid." - The court quantified SLV's enrichment - The award to KGH would have been, but for his unclean hands, $107,000 - Those funds were to be paid into court by SLV, and were not available to KGH until all claims brought by EH against the funds were determined - See paragraphs 42 to 62.

Restitution - Topic 101

Unjust enrichment - Bars - General - [See Restitution - Topic 64 ].

Restitution - Topic 121

Unjust enrichment - Remedies - General - [See Restitution - Topic 64 ].

Cases Noticed:

Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629; 319 N.R. 38; 186 O.A.C. 128; 2004 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 37].

Kerr v. Baranow, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269; 411 N.R. 200; 300 B.C.A.C. 1; 509 W.A.C. 1; 274 O.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 37].

Rubin v. Gendemann (2011), 507 A.R. 215; 2011 ABQB 71, affd. (2012), 522 A.R. 358; 544 W.A.C. 358; 2012 ABCA 38, refd to. [para. 41].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Feduk, [2004] 2 W.W.R. 69; 232 Sask.R. 161; 294 W.A.C. 161; 2003 SKCA 46, refd to. [para. 48].

1297835 Alberta Ltd. v. Xtreme Coil Drilling Corp. (2010), 503 A.R. 56; 2010 ABQB 539, refd to. [para. 48].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Spry, Ian C.F., The Principles of Equitable Remedies: Specific Performance, Injunctions, Rectification and Equitable Damages (6th Ed. 2001), pp. 245 to 246 [para. 48].

Counsel:

Dale Ellert, for the plaintiff;

Nigel Montoute, for the defendant.

This claim was heard on February 4 to 8, 2013, before Jeffrey, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment and reasons for judgment, dated June 4, 2013.