In recent times, a significant development in the law of unjust enrichment in the family law sector is the concept of Joint Family Venture (JVF). This term, primarily derived from the business domain, indicates a partnership for mutual profit. However, in the context of family law, it refers to a relationship where both parties contribute in various ways for wealth accumulation and management. The concept of JVF can be a complex one, with numerous factors playing into its identification and application. In this blog post, we'll delve deeper into the concept of JVF, its applicability in unjust enrichment claims, the factors for identifying a JVF, and its application to pensions.

Family law, a specialized area that deals with familial and domestic relations, often involves complex legal concepts. Among these is the principle of unjust enrichment, a term that frequently finds mention in property disputes between spouses, particularly when a relationship terminates. The idea behind unjust enrichment revolves around the concept that no party should gain an advantage at the unnecessary expense of another.

Unjust enrichment is a principle of law that occurs when one person is unjustly or by chance enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of liability for wrongdoing. Once unjust enrichment is proven, the court has to decide on appropriate remedies, which could be either a monetary award or a proprietary remedy.

Unjust enrichment claims in the context of family law can be complex yet integral to ensuring fair property distribution between partners after a relationship ends. This concept often revolves around a spouse claiming a share in a property's ownership or value, legally owned by the other spouse, based on their contributions to the property or the relationship. To comprehend this better, we will delve into the key aspects of unjust enrichment claims in family law, including the test for unjust enrichment, juristic reason analysis, and how these claims apply to married spouses.

Unjust enrichment is a fundamental and crucial component of Canadian law. It addresses situations where one party has unjustly benefited at the expense of another, causing imbalance and potential injustice. This legal principle aims at ensuring fairness and justice, correcting these imbalances by imposing certain obligations on the enriched party. To identify unjust enrichment, there are specific test criteria that need to be satisfied. This blog post will provide an in-depth analysis of these criteria, shedding light on their intricacies and significance in the realm of law

Property rights, especially in the context of marital and common-law relationships, can often be a complex maze of legalities. In Ontario, the statutory scheme for property division between married couples is clearly laid out, while common-law couples often find themselves in a less charted territory. This blog post will delve into the differences in property rights between married and common-law spouses and will explore concepts such as equitable ownership, unjust enrichment, and trust principles.

When it comes to legal claims for unjust enrichment made by common-law partners in Ontario, the applicable limitation periods can be somewhat complex and variable. The specific nature of the remedy sought determines the limitation period that applies, and there isn't a single, all-encompassing period that covers all unjust enrichment claims.