Constructive Trusts: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Legal Principles]] | [[Category:Legal Principles]] | ||
==Vellenga v. Boersma, 2020 ONCA 537 (CanLII) | ==Vellenga v. Boersma, 2020 ONCA 537 (CanLII){{Vellenga}}== | ||
[32] In Soulos, at para. 45, the Supreme Court outlined <b><u>four conditions that should generally be satisfied where a court imposes a constructive trust for wrongful conduct:</b></u> | [32] In Soulos, at para. 45, the Supreme Court outlined <b><u>four conditions that should generally be satisfied where a court imposes a constructive trust for wrongful conduct:</b></u> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::(4) There must be no factors which would render imposition of a constructive trust unjust in all the circumstances of the case; e.g., the interests of intervening creditors must be protected. | ::(4) There must be no factors which would render imposition of a constructive trust unjust in all the circumstances of the case; e.g., the interests of intervening creditors must be protected. | ||
==Roppovalente v. Danis, 2020 ONSC 5290 (CanLII){{Roppovalente}}== | ==Roppovalente v. Danis, 2020 ONSC 5290 (CanLII){{Roppovalente}}== | ||
Revision as of 22:20, 5 May 2021
Vellenga v. Boersma, 2020 ONCA 537 (CanLII)[1]
[32] In Soulos, at para. 45, the Supreme Court outlined four conditions that should generally be satisfied where a court imposes a constructive trust for wrongful conduct:
- (1) The defendant must have been under an equitable obligation, that is, an obligation of the type that courts of equity have enforced, in relation to the activities giving rise to the assets in his hands;
- (2) The assets in the hands of the defendant must be shown to have resulted from deemed or actual agency activities of the defendant in breach of his equitable obligation to the plaintiff;
- (3) The plaintiff must show a legitimate reason for seeking a proprietary remedy, either personal or related to the need to ensure that others like the defendant remain faithful to their duties; and
- (4) There must be no factors which would render imposition of a constructive trust unjust in all the circumstances of the case; e.g., the interests of intervening creditors must be protected.
Roppovalente v. Danis, 2020 ONSC 5290 (CanLII)[2]
References
- ↑ Vellenga v. Boersma, 2020 ONCA 537 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j9g28>, retrieved on 2020-09-01
- ↑ Roppovalente v. Danis, 2020 ONSC 5290 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/j9j5h>, retrieved on 2021-05-05
