Unjust Enrichment Claims in Common Law Relationships: A Guide to Joint Family Ventures
- Calgary Legal Team
- May 7, 2024
- 5 min read
Updated: Apr 15
Article Summary
When common law relationships end, property division can be complex, particularly when partners have contributed to joint business ventures or wealth accumulation. This article examines how courts handle unjust enrichment claims in common law relationships, focusing on the recent McBride v Bacovsky, 2024 ABCA 61 case. Learn how courts determine when a joint family venture exists and what factors influence the division of assets between unmarried partners.
Featured case: McBride v Bacovsky, 2024 ABCA 61
Alberta's Property Division Framework
Amendments to the Family Property Act in 2020 brought the property rights of adult interdependent partners (often referred to as common law partners) in line with those of married partners. In effect, these amendments extended the property division rights available to married spouses going through a divorce to all adult interdependent relationships going through a dissolution.
Regardless of the form of relationship, partners often contribute to joint family ventures during the course of their relationship. A joint family venture arises where both parties to a relationship contribute to a business or other effort to accumulate wealth.
What Makes a Joint Family Venture?
The Court requires the presence of several elements to make a finding that there was a joint family venture:
Mutual contribution: Both parties must have contributed to the family venture in some way, either directly or indirectly. Indirect contributions might include staying home to care for children or maintaining the household, which gives the other partner greater freedom to build up the venture.
Financial integration: The more integrated the parties' finances are, the stronger the claim that a joint family venture exists.
Intention: Courts consider whether there was any expressed or implied intent that the venture was a genuine joint family undertaking.
Prioritization of family: Evidence that one partner relied on the relationship to their detriment to prioritize family interests strengthens the case.
Causal connection: There must be an overall causal connection between a party's contribution and wealth accumulation.
Unjust Enrichment as a Legal Remedy
For common law relationships that ended before the 2020 Family Property Act changes, the legal remedy available was to pursue a claim for unjust enrichment. This allows a partner to claim a share of a joint family venture they contributed to, even if the venture is legally held by the other partner.
For a claim of unjust enrichment to succeed, three elements must be present:
The defendant must be enriched in some way or receive a benefit in a particular situation;
The plaintiff or person claiming unjust enrichment must have been deprived of something as a result of the same situation.
There is no legally or public policy valid reason for one parties’ enrichment and the other party’s deprivation. In other words, the plaintiff has to show that it would be unjust for the defendant to keep the benefit at the plaintiff’s expense. The defendant is open to give other reasons why it is fair to keep the benefit.
McBride v. Bacovsky: A Case Study
Case Study: McBride v Bacovsky, 2024 ABCA 61
The Alberta courts dealt with the issue of unjust enrichment recently with respect to joint family ventures in the case of McBride v Bacovsky, 2024 ABCA 61, where the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the earlier decision made by Justice Anderson. This case is an example of an adult interdependent partner's successful unjust enrichment claim at trial, which was recently affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
The parties were in a relationship lasting 10 years (1999-2009) but never married. They began living together in 2000 when Ms. McBride became pregnant. When their relationship began, Mr. Bacovsky owned a chartered bus service, National Motor Coach ("NMC"), through his company. Ms. McBride assisted with aspects of the company, including mail collection, emails, and typing.
During the marriage, Ms. McBride started a chauffeured limousine service company, Transprotection. At separation, Mr. Bacovsky was leaving the relationship with assets valued at approximately $10.6 million.
Court's Analysis of Contributions
Justice Anderson found that Ms. McBride had made significant contributions, especially during her maternity leave, when she assisted with a large project for NMC – chartering attendees for the G8 Summit. Her work involved hiring and organizing extra staff and drivers, arranging catering, and setting up a driver dispatch program, all without pay.
The Court concluded that Mr. Bacovsky benefited from Ms. McBride's efforts to his detriment. After the G8 Summit, the Court found that Ms. McBride was primarily responsible for caring for the home and children, despite having a nanny. Due to her efforts, Mr. Bacovsky benefited as his time was freed up to expand the business.
Mr. Bacovsky provided start-up capital for Ms. McBride to establish Transprotection, which was done to provide her with more flexibility as their nanny was leaving. The Court found that the relationship between Transprotection and NMC benefited both companies, and Ms. McBride continued to care for their young child, who also had special needs.
Evidence of a Joint Family Venture
Court's Award
Implications for Common Law Partners
This case demonstrates several important principles for common law partners:
Courts will recognize indirect contributions to a business or wealth accumulation, such as household management and childcare
A successful unjust enrichment claim requires evidence of contribution, deprivation, and absence of juristic reason
The percentage awarded depends on the specific circumstances and contributions of each partner
Even when property is legally held in one partner's name, courts may find that the other partner has an equitable interest based on their contributions
If you were part of a joint family venture during a common law relationship and are now separating, or believe you were part of such a venture during a previous common law relationship, The Calgary Legal Team can help you understand your rights and potential claims.
Opmerkingen