Background
Shelley-Anne Stacey and William Cyril Vey were in a common-law relationship for about three and a half years. They were never married, had no children together, and had no cohabitation agreement. Stacey moved into Vey’s Richmond Hill home in 2015 and made some improvements before it was sold in 2017. The sale proceeds were used to purchase a home in Alliston.
The parties signed and registered an agreement holding the Alliston property as tenants in common, with a 90% interest for Vey and 10% for Stacey. They later discussed changing the division to 59/41 in Vey’s favour in connection with refinancing, but never signed or registered a new agreement. When the property sold in 2019 for $752,000—about $150,000 less than its purchase price—the parties received their respective 10% shares and disputed the balance held in trust.
The trial judge found Vey had been unjustly enriched, held that the parties had been engaged in a joint family venture, and awarded Stacey 41% of the net sale proceeds. Vey appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the trial order, dismissed Stacey’s application, and directed that 90% of the sale proceeds be paid to Vey. The record did not reasonably support the required elements of unjust enrichment: Vey was not enriched by the sale of a property that had declined substantially in value, and Stacey had not shown a corresponding deprivation. Her modest contributions to the properties and shared mortgage liability had already been compensated by her 10% interest, despite her having made no contribution to the purchase price.
The court also held that this short and unstable relationship was not a joint family venture under Kerr v. Baranow. Although the parties had some joint accounts and shared some expenses, there was no sufficient mutual and cooperative economic integration, common savings, family obligations, future planning, or prioritization of a family unit. Finally, the trial judge erred in finding that the ownership arrangement changed to 59/41: the signed, registered 90/10 agreement was never replaced.
Key Takeaways
- A decline in a property’s value may defeat an unjust-enrichment claim where the alleged recipient has not actually retained an enrichment.
- A joint family venture requires evidence of how the couple actually organized their economic lives; it is not presumed from cohabitation, shared expenses, or a jointly held home.
- Unexecuted discussions about revising ownership do not displace a signed and registered property-sharing agreement.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that equitable claims between unmarried former partners remain fact-specific. Courts must distinguish between ordinary contributions made during a relationship and contributions that establish an uncompensated benefit retained by the other partner.
It also reinforces the importance of documenting any intended change to title or beneficial ownership. Here, the written 90/10 arrangement governed because the contemplated 59/41 arrangement was never finalized.