“The Supreme Court of Canada, in Rathwell v. Rathwell, (1978), distinguished between the remedies of resulting trust and constructive trust in the context of claims made where one spouse had become enriched at the expense of the other: 1978 CanLII 3 (SCC). In resulting trusts, courts require a common intention, manifested by words or acts, that one of the parties is acquiring property as a trustee whereas, in constructive trusts, no intention is required.
…
Where the court finds that there has been an unjust enrichment in relation to the acquisition or preservation of property, it exercises discretion as to whether to order a payment of money to the aggrieved party, or an actual interest in property. A constructive trust interest in the property itself is available only when a monetary remedy is inadequate and where there is a link between the services rendered and the property in which the trust is claimed: Peter v. Beblow, 1993 CanLII 126 (SCC). A constructive trust is appropriate, for example, where there is a finding of fraud in relation to the particular property: Soulos v. Korkontzilas, 1997 CanLII 346 (SCC).”