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.
Call Now
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:
- the respondent was enriched;
- the applicant suffered a corresponding deprivation; and
- 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.
Contact Us
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.
Call Now
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.
Contact Us
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.
Call Now
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.
Contact Us
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.
Call Now
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.
Contact Us
