Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Unjust enrichment rare in cases with equalization

[21]       The trial judge's finding that there was no unjust enrichment is reasonable.  We are not persuaded that we should interfere with it.  Below, we will briefly address the two grounds Mrs. Symmons puts forward for her unjust enrichment claim, and explain why we find them unpersuasive.  Before doing so, it is worth noting that this court has recently held "in the vast majority of cases, any unjust enrichment that arises as the result of a marriage will be fully addressed through the operation of the equalization provisions under the Family Law Act…": McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533, 106 O.R. (3d) 401, at para. 66.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.cheaptimberlandboot1973.com]timberland boots sale[/url] qwaock http://www.cheaptimberlandboot1973.com [url=http://www.cheaptimberlandbootssale.com]timberland boots sale[/url] tbpyig http://www.cheaptimberlandbootssale.com [url=http://www.cheaptimberlandbootsmen.com]cheap timberland boots[/url] wtghnq http://www.cheaptimberlandbootsmen.com [url=http://www.cheaptimberlandbootoutlet.com]timberland boots sale[/url] dgpbdr http://www.cheaptimberlandbootoutlet.com [url=http://www.saletimberlandboots.org]timberland boots sale[/url] hrvojd http://www.saletimberlandboots.org s