“No counterclaim is advanced and set-off is not specifically pleaded as a defence. However, Mr. Kinsley’s position at trial was that Ms. Galbraith benefited from the relationship and from residing in the home. This position cannot have been a surprise to Ms. Galbraith. It has been a known feature of the law of unjust enrichment since before Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, where the Supreme Court of Canada said, at para. 48, that “it is unjust to pay attention only to the contributions of one party in assessing an appropriate remedy.” And while speaking of the correct approach to addressing the mutual exchange of benefits, the court said, at para. 109 of Kerr, that the conferral of mutual benefits “should be taken into account at the defence and/or remedy stage.” The court also said, at para. 109, that this “can, and should, take place whether or not the defendant has made a formal counterclaim or pleaded set-off.” Here, it is appropriate to evaluate Ms. Galbraith’s unjust enrichment claim bearing in mind the benefits and enrichment she also received from the relationship.”