Unjust enrichment: fair is fair!(Feature: Wills and Estates)

• Author: Milliken, Judith

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Unjust enrichment is a legal doctrine based on the general equitable principal that no one should be allowed to profit at another's expense.

In other words, a person should pay for the reasonable value of any benefits, whether property or services, that he or she has unfairly received and kept from another person.

Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine that originated in the Courts of Equity, the court system parallel to the Courts of Law until the historic merger of the two systems in the 19th century. The equitable remedies developed by the Courts of Equity were based on overarching moral principles designed to alleviate injustices caused by the strict application of the common law.

This is important to bear in mind because unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine founded on moral principles rather than on legal precedent. Thus, it remains a flexible tool for providing compensation in appropriate circumstances.

Unjust Enrichment: Commercial Context to Domestic Claims

The doctrine of unjust enrichment arose in the commercial world. A simple example would be a minor who signs a contract that is unenforceable because, until he or she becomes an adult, that minor does not have the legal capacity to enter such an agreement.

Nevertheless, if the minor receives a benefit under the failed contract, the court likely would require the minor to pay for that benefit, based on the law of unjust enrichment.

As an equitable doctrine, there is a great deal of room for discretion by the courts in deciding what is fair in any particular situation. Thus, if duress was used to induce the minor to enter the agreement in the first place, the court would probably decline to exercise its discretion to order repayment, because the claimant did not come to court with "clean hands."

Although the doctrine of unjust enrichment originated in the commercial context, today it applies to a variety of situations. A series of Supreme Court of Canada decisions has broadened the reach of unjust enrichment to include personal relationships.

The case of Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980, was a crucial step in the advancement of unjust enrichment in domestic claims because the Supreme Court recognized that domestic services can support a claim for unjust enrichment. Specifically, it ruled that a spouse has no legal duty to perform household work or services for other family members and may well be entitled to compensation for those services on the breakup of the marriage.

Estate Litigation

In estate litigation, claims of unjust enrichment are made where children have provided services to their parents, believing they will be compensated.

So, for example, in the case of Antrobus v. Antrobus 2010 BCCA 356, unjust enrichment was found in the case of an eldest daughter who had acted as a "child homemaker" and did all the chores and cared for her younger...