Dear Colleagues:

Some of you might be interested in the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Vanaesse v. Seguin 96 O.R. (3d) 321 (CA). From the headnote:

Enrichment and corresponding impoverishment — Appeal by common law husband from award of $996,500 to common law wife for unjust enrichment allowed and new trial ordered — Trial judge erred in approach she used to quantify compensation owed due to unjust enrichment — Correct approach was to determine the "value received" and not "value retained" — The value that each party received from the other should have been assessed and set-off — In addition to the husband's financial contribution, trial judge should have considered relevant evidence pertaining to his non-financial contributions to relationship.

-- 
Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435 

====

This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.