“In Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, at para. 87, Cromwell J. explained that when parties have been engaged in a joint family venture, and the claimant’s contributions to it are linked to the generation of wealth, a monetary award for unjust enrichment should be calculated according to the share of the accumulated wealth proportionate to the claimant’s contributions. Obviously, in order to apply this approach, it is necessary to first determine whether the parties have, in fact, been engaged in a joint family venture.
Cohabiting couples are not a homogenous group. The analysis must take into account the unique circumstances of each particular relationship. There is no presumption of a joint family venture. The goal is for the law of unjust enrichment to attach just consequences to the way the parties have lived their lives. A joint family venture can only be identified by the court when its existence, in fact, is well grounded in the evidence. The emphasis should be on how the parties actually lived their lives, not on their ex post facto assertions or the court’s view of how they ought to have done so: Kerr v. Baranow at para. 88.
Cromwell J. directed trial judges undertaking this analysis to consider the evidence under four main headings: mutual effort, economic integration, actual intent and priority of the family. Cromwell J. further observed that there is inevitably overlap among factors that may be relevant under these headings and that there is no closed list of relevant factors: Kerr v. Baranow at para. 89.”