Background

In Mehdian v. Dadras et al., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed a summary judgment motion brought by parents-in-law seeking to dismiss significant trust and unjust enrichment claims advanced against them by their son-in-law.

The applicant husband and his wife were married in Iran in 1993 and immigrated to Canada in 1998. During the marriage, the wife’s parents purchased and later redeveloped a luxury property located at 71 Bridle Path in Toronto (the “Bridle Path Property”). Title was held exclusively in the parents-in-law’s names. The family lived in the home for several years before the parties separated in 2021. The property was sold shortly thereafter for approximately $23.85 million.

The husband commenced a family law application seeking, among other relief, equalization of net family property and declarations that the parents-in-law held 50% of the Bridle Path Property in trust for him and his wife. He alleged unjust enrichment, a joint family venture, and sought tracing and accounting of the sale proceeds. Because the wife was not asserting a beneficial ownership claim herself, the husband limited his claim to a 25% beneficial interest.

The parents-in-law denied all allegations and moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them. They also sought to strike portions of the application they argued were inflammatory and irrelevant.

The Law

Summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules is governed by the principles articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin. The court must determine whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. A motion judge may weigh evidence, assess credibility, and draw inferences, but only where it is in the interest of justice to do so.

Claims for unjust enrichment require proof that:

1. the respondent was enriched;
2. the applicant suffered a corresponding deprivation; and
3. there is no juristic reason for the enrichment.

Constructive or resulting trusts are remedial, not standalone causes of action, and depend on the underlying unjust enrichment analysis. Where material facts are contested and credibility assessments are required, summary judgment will generally be inappropriate.

Analysis

What Were the Parents-in-Law Asking the Court to Decide on Summary Judgment?

They asked the Court to dismiss all claims against them on the basis that the husband had no evidence capable of supporting unjust enrichment, a trust interest, or a joint family venture, and that the claims were speculative, unsupported, and time-barred.

Could the Court Decide the Unjust Enrichment Claim on the Written Record?

No. Justice Vella held that the unjust enrichment claim raised multiple genuine issues of material fact that could not be resolved without a trial.

The husband presented evidence of alleged monetary contributions (including bank transfers, refinancing proceeds, and sale of property in Iran), non-monetary contributions, and a mutual understanding of shared beneficial ownership. The parents-in-law denied all such claims and offered alternative explanations.

Resolving these disputes required credibility assessments that could not fairly be made on the motion record.

4. Did the Husband’s Evidence Need to Be Perfect to Defeat Summary Judgment?

The test is not whether the responding party will ultimately succeed, but whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. The parents-in-law, as moving parties, bore the initial burden which they failed to discharge.

5. How Did the Lack of Evidence from the Wife Affect the Motion?

Decisively. The Court emphasized that the wife’s evidence was critical. Many of the contested facts including alleged contributions, understandings, and whether funds were gifts directly implicated her knowledge and intentions.

Her absence from the evidentiary record created a “glaring gap” that made it impossible to fairly determine the issues on summary judgment.

Was the Limitation Period Defense Suitable for Summary Judgment?

No. The parents-in-law argued that the unjust enrichment claims were statute-barred. However, the husband asserted that he did not discover the claim until separation in 2021. Determining discoverability required factual findings that could not be resolved on the motion record.

As a result, the limitation defense itself raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Conclusion

Mehdian v. Dadras et al. is a strong illustration of the limits of summary judgment in complex family law disputes involving extended family members, alleged trust interests, and competing narratives of contribution and intent.

The decision confirms that:

• unjust enrichment and trust claims are highly fact-driven;
• credibility disputes generally require viva voce evidence;
• moving parties bear a heavy burden on summary judgment; and
• courts will strike inflammatory pleadings but will not prematurely dismiss potentially viable claims.