Unjust Enrichment, Joint Family Venture, and the Importance of the Parties’ Actual Property Agreement - Stacey v. Vey, 2026 ONCA 564
The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Stacey v. Vey, 2026 ONCA 564, is an important reminder that unjust enrichment is not a free-standing power to redistribute property between former common-law spouses.
The claimant must establish an enrichment and corresponding deprivation, and a joint family venture must be grounded in the evidence of how the parties actually organized their economic lives.
This case was on appeal from the order of Justice Peter Douglas of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 3, 2025, with reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 664.
Background
William V. and Shelley-Anne S. were in a short common-law relationship lasting approximately three and one-half years. They were never married, had no children together, and did not enter into a cohabitation agreement. The trial judge found that the relationship was not stable overall.
Ms. S. moved into Mr. V.’s Richmond Hill home in July 2015. Before that property was sold, she performed and paid for some improvements, including painting, repairs and landscaping. The net proceeds from that sale were then used toward the purchase of a new property in Alliston for $901,000.
The parties expressly agreed in writing that title to the new property would be held 90% by Mr. V. and 10% by Ms. S. Both parties were liable on the mortgage. In 2018, they discussed changing the ownership split to 59/41, but no amended agreement was ever signed or registered.
The Alliston property was sold in December 2019 for $752,000, approximately $150,000 less than its purchase price. After the mortgage and other deductions, net proceeds of approximately $329,000 remained.
At trial, the judge found that Mr. V. had been unjustly enriched by Ms. S.’s contributions, that the parties had been engaged in a joint family venture, and that Ms. S. was entitled to 41% of the proceeds of sale.
The Issues on Appeal
The Court of Appeal considered three principal questions:
whether the trial judge erred in finding unjust enrichment;
whether the trial judge erred in finding that the parties were engaged in a joint family venture; and
whether the trial judge erred in awarding Ms. S. 41% of the sale proceeds despite the parties’ signed 90/10 ownership agreement.
Unjust Enrichment
The Court restated the familiar three-part test from Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, and Moore v. Sweet, 2018 SCC 52. A claimant must prove an enrichment of the defendant, a corresponding deprivation of the claimant, and the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment.
The Court held that the evidence did not reasonably support the first two requirements.
The property had been purchased for $901,000 and sold for $752,000. Mr. V. had therefore not been enriched by the property’s sale; his net worth and the value of the property had declined. Ms. S.’s contributions were also relatively limited. Her principal contribution was sharing liability for the mortgage, and she had already received a 10% ownership interest despite making no contribution to the purchase price.
The Court concluded that there was no reasonable basis to find either an enrichment of Mr. V. or a corresponding deprivation of Ms. S.
No Joint Family Venture
The Court also rejected the trial judge’s finding of a joint family venture.
Relying on Kerr, the Court emphasized that a joint family venture is not presumed merely because parties cohabit. The inquiry concerns the actual economic structure of the relationship, including mutual effort, economic integration, actual intention, and the priority given to the family unit.
Here, the relationship was short and unstable. There were no children or other common family obligations. Although the parties had some joint accounts and shared some expenses, their incomes remained separate, they did not create a common pool of savings, and there was little evidence of future financial planning or broad economic integration beyond the jointly owned property.
The Court held that the degree of mutual and cooperative economic integration necessary to support a joint family venture was absent.
The 90/10 Property Agreement
The Court further held that the trial judge erred in effectively replacing the parties’ actual 90/10 ownership arrangement with the proposed 59/41 arrangement that had never been finalized.
The parties had signed an agreement establishing the 90/10 division and registered that ownership structure on title. Although they later discussed changing the split, no new agreement was signed and no change was registered.
The Court also distinguished between a contractual claim and an unjust enrichment remedy. A monetary remedy for unjust enrichment must correspond to the enrichment unjustly retained. It cannot simply be based on an alleged property-sharing agreement that was never completed.
Result
The appeal was allowed. The Court set aside the trial judgment, dismissed Ms. S.’s application, and ordered that 90% of the remaining proceeds of sale be paid to Mr. V. in accordance with the parties’ ownership arrangement.
Practical Takeaway
For common-law spouses, Stacey is a significant property decision. Ontario’s equalization regime does not apply to unmarried spouses, but that does not mean courts will simply recreate an equalization-like result through unjust enrichment.
A claimant must prove the elements of unjust enrichment on the evidence. A joint family venture requires meaningful economic integration and a shared financial enterprise. Short duration, separate finances, absence of children, and an express ownership agreement may all weigh strongly against such a finding.
The case also reinforces the practical value of documenting ownership arrangements. Where parties clearly set out their respective interests in property, that agreement can be powerful evidence of their actual intention and economic arrangement.
Comments