Law360 Canada ( October 2, 2026, 9:42 AM EDT) -- Appeal by William from an order holding that he was unjustly enriched and other findings. William and Shelley were in a three-and-one-half-year common law relationship. They were never married, had no children together, and did not enter into a cohabitation agreement. The central issue at trial was a dispute over the proceeds of sale of the Treetops property. The trial judge held that William was unjustly enriched at Shelley’s expense, as there was a joint family venture, and Shelley was entitled to 41 per cent of the proceeds of sale. The Treetops property was purchased for $901,000 using William’s proceeds of sale from the Bayswater property. Shelley made no contribution to the purchase price. William and Shelley entered into a written agreement which provided that they would hold the Treetops property as tenants in common, with ownership divided 90/10 in favour of William. The issues were whether the trial judge erred in holding that William was unjustly enriched, whether the trial judge erred in holding that there was a joint family venture, and whether the trial judge erred in granting Shelley 41 per cent of the net proceeds from the sale of the Treetops property....