“The test for unjust enrichment requires me to consider the following:
(1) whether Sukhminder was an enriched;
(2) whether there was a corresponding deprivation to the Parminder and Amandeep; and
(3) whether there was a juristic reason for the benefit and corresponding detriment: Moore v. Sweet, 2018 SCC 52, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 303 at paras. 35 to 59, 63, and 83; Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10 (CanLII), [2011] 1 SCR 269 (S.C.C.) at paras. 30-31.
The question is largely economic at the first and second stage, while the third stage engages relevant legal and policy issues: Moore v. Sweet, at para. 41.
The requirement to show an enrichment and a corresponding deprivation are closely related, being “the same thing from different perspectives” and “essentially two sides of the same coin”: Moore v. Sweet, at para. 41. The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that the acid test is whether the defendant becomes richer in circumstances where the plaintiff becomes poorer: Moore v. Sweet, at para. 44. The concept of “loss” therefore captures a benefit that was never in the plaintiff’s possession but that the court finds would have accrued for their benefit had it not been received by the defendant instead: Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Lloyds Bank Canada, 1997 CanLII 334 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 805, at para. 30.”