Date: 19990125 Docket: 31807 Registry: Prince George IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: CINDY ANN KOLODYCHUK PLAINTIFF AND: MICHAEL FREDRICK BLODGETT DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. F. WILSON Counsel for the Plaintiff: M. J. Brecknell and S. Kristan Counsel for the Defendant: D. B. McGaughey Place and Date of Trial: Prince George, B.C. October 19 - 23, October 27 - 30 and November 2 - 5, 1998 I INTRODUCTION [1] The plaintiff and defendant started to live together as husband and wife in June, 1989. They separated in October, 1995. In this trial, the plaintiff sought an equal division of various assets, based on a resulting trust. Alternatively, she sought a declaration of a constructive trust, and judgment in proportion to her contributions to the relationship. The defendant asked that her claims be dismissed, for declarations that he is entitled to the various assets, for orders that she transfer any interest held by her to him, and for an order compensating him for benefits received by her following the date of the separation. The principal assets involved are a mobile home park, known as Bel-Aire Estates, which is registered in joint names, and a number of mobile homes, which are registered in the name of the defendant. [2] There is other relief claimed in the Statement of Claim, and in the Amended Counter-Claim, but those matters have either been disposed of by previous court orders or were abandoned at trial. [3] Since the separation, the plaintiff has married, and is now Cindy Ann Pedersen. II CREDIBILITY [4] Counsel for Mr. Blodgett attacked the credibility of Ms. Pedersen on the basis that she was involved in "welfare fraud". Specifically, he noted that she lived in a common-law relationship with Ken McMurray before living with Mr. Blodgett. At that time, she was receiving social assistance for herself and her daughter. However, she did not disclose that she was living with Mr. McMurray, and conceded that she probably would not have qualified for social assistance had she done so. He noted, also, that when she was taking job training, her mother, Anita Koldychuk, babysat her daughter, Ashley. However, as social assistance would not pay a relative to look after a child, the payment for the babysitting was made to her sister- in-law who then paid it to her mother. He submitted involvement in the "welfare fraud" also affects the credibility of Anita Kolodychuk, who was called as a witness for the plaintiff. [5] The apparent existence of "welfare fraud" does significantly affect the credibility of both Ms. Pedersen and Mrs. Kolodychuk. However, there appears to have been acts done by both Ms. Pedersen and Mr. Blodgett with the intent either of receiving funds, or avoiding liabilities they would otherwise have had. For example, during the relationship, Ms. Pedersen collected the revenue from the laundromat at Bel-Aire Estates, which was not declared as income for tax purposes. That appears to have followed a practice followed by her parents, from whom the mobile home park was purchased, and followed by Mr. Blodgett after the separation. Ms. Pedersen claimed the amount of cash received from the laundromat varied from $25 to $300 per month. Mr. Blodgett, on the other hand, said it was between $200 and $300 per month. I accept the evidence of Mr. Blodgett in that regard, as it was supported by the evidence of Mrs. Kolodychuk. In cross-examination with respect to a financial statement prepared to assist in the sale of the mobile home park, she was asked by counsel for Mr. Blodgett about revenue from the laundromat, which had not been included. She said if it had been included, that would have increased the income by about $3,600 per year, which supports the estimate of $300 as the amount of cash taken from the laundromat each month. [6] Before the relationship started, and at the start of it, Mr. Blodgett operated Spike Logging Ltd., through which he provided services as a logger. However, that company was assessed by the Workers' Compensation Board. A new business, C.K. Contracting, was thus established, nominally in the name of Ms. Pedersen. That enabled Mr. Blodgett not only to avoid the assessment, but to collect unemployment insurance benefits, which he apparently would not have been able to receive if the business had been registered in his own name. [7] As a further example, both Mr. Blodgett and Ms. Pedersen showed themselves as single on their tax returns during the relationship. That enabled Ms. Pedersen to claim Ashley as "equivalent as spouse", and to obtain a tax advantage. Mr. Duncan Patterson, the accountant for Bel-Aire, said that when the rules with respect to common-law status changed, he advised Ms. Pedersen. However, she was adamant that she did not want to lose the "equivalent to married" exemption, and thus provided an address to him other than that for where she was living with Mr. Blodgett, initially that of a relative, then a box number. [8] Those examples do indicate a willingness to distort the truth when there is a benefit to be obtained. However, that cannot be attributed only to Ms. Pedersen, and her parents, as suggested by counsel for Mr. Blodgett. It also affects the credibility of Mr. Blodgett, as he was involved with, and likely the author of, a number of schemes to mislead the relevant authorities. In those circumstances, I consider that I must approach the evidence of both Ms. Pedersen and Mr. Blodgett with considerable caution. This also reflects on the evidence of Ms. Pedersen's parents, Joe and Anita Kolodychuk. In any event, I consider the evidence of both of them to be slanted in favour of Ms. Pedersen, rather than representing the true state of affairs. An example is the allegations that "good deals" were given to Mr. Blodgett; that the price assets were sold to him for were much less than the price at which they would have been sold to other parties. I do not accept that evidence. First, Mr. Kolodychuk conceded that Mr. Blodgett was never advised that he was receiving the assets for a price less than market value. Further, the first asset purchased by Mr. Blodgett from the Kolodychuks, trailer #71, was sold in May, 1989. That was about the time the relationship between Ms. Pedersen and Mr. Blodgett started and before they were living together. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Kolodychuk said that he sold it to Mr. Blodgett for $18,500, while he would have asked $24,000 to $26,000 if he was selling it to a third party. It makes no sense that he would give a discount of several thousand dollars to a person who, at most, had just started a relationship with his daughter, without any indication that relationship was going to be long-term. III RESULTING TRUST A. Law [9] As stated by Proudfoot J.A. in Brundage v. Campbell (1992), 73 B.C.L.R. (2d) 362 at page 372: A resulting trust exists where there is an agreement or a common intention expressed or implied to share an asset. She also referred to the statement of Dickson J. in Pettkus v. Becker (1980), 19 R.F.L. (2d) 165, at page 175, regarding the difficulty of establishing common intention or an agreement to share in an asset, as there is often no clear evidence expressing such an intention or agreement. In Pettkus v. Becker, Dickson J. stated: Although the resulting trust approach will often afford a wife the relief she seeks, the resulting trust is not available, as Professor Waters points out, at page 374 (of a comment in (1975) 53 Can. Bar Rev. 366): "where the imputation of intention is impossible or unreasonable". One cannot imply an intention that the wife should have an interest if her conduct before or after the acquisition of the property is "wholly ambiguous", or its association with the alleged agreement "altogether tenuous". Where evidence is inconsistent with resulting trust, the Court has the choice of denying a remedy or accepting the constructive trust. [10] Counsel for Ms. Pedersen also referred to the decision of Selbie J. in Nelson v. Swannie, unreported, March 2, 1995, Chilliwack Registry No. S2965, British Columbia Supreme Court, in paragraph 8, in support of the proposition that the rights of the plaintiff must be determined as of the date of the transaction. He submitted that subsequent events do not affect this original and binding intention. However, that appears to be contrary to the statement of Dickson J. in Pettkus v. Becker, referring to the conduct of the wife "before or after the acquisition of the property". Clearly, however, the circumstances at the time of acquisition of the property will be critical to establishing the existence, or absence, of a common intention. [11] Counsel for Ms. Pedersen also relied on the following statement of Selbie J. in Nelson v. Swannie, in paragraph 9: It is further presumed that when parties enter into a joint tenancy, entitlement will be equal. A party who claims otherwise must bear the onus of proving the grounds necessary to justify a reapportionment. Although that was a case decided under the Partition of Property Act, the fact that the property has been put into joint tenancy clearly is evidence indicating the intention of the parties. In most cases in which a resulting trust is claimed, the property is registered solely in the name of the husband, and the wife seeks an interest in it; the onus is then on her to establish a common intention. However, where, as in this case, property is registered in joint names, there is no need for the wife to seek a declaration of resulting trust; she is entitled to an undivided half interest in the property, unless the husband can prove that she holds that interest in trust for him. B. Findings of Fact 1. The relationship [12] I conclude that both Ms. Pedersen and Mr. Blodgett intended that their relationship would be a long-term one, in the nature of that of husband and wife. It was more than a mere economic partnership. That is indicated, in particular, by the attempts to have a child, which was the wish of both, not just Ms. Pedersen. Ms. Pedersen went to Vancouver on five occasions over four years to attempt in vitro fertilization. The cost of that treatment was approximately $30,000. That cost was intended to benefit both Ms. Pedersen and Mr. Blodgett. Mr. Blodgett, in cross-examination, said that was not related to marriage, that it could have been a permanent common-law relationship. However, he also said that he never indicated that he no interest in marrying. For the purpose of this action, however, it makes no difference whether the intended relationship was that of a legal marriage or a long term common-law relationship. [13] Further, I find that Mr. Blodgett did not want the relationship to end, when it did in October, 1995. In the period just before the separation, he made a deposit for the purchase of a second snowmobile, to be used by Ms. Pedersen. After the separation, he went to Creston, where Mr. and Mrs. Kolodychuk had moved after the sale of Bel-Aire Estates, to enlist Ms. Pedersen's mother's help in trying to keep the relationship together. He obviously wanted that relationship to continue. [14] I conclude that in the six year period Ms. Pedersen and Mr. Blodgett lived together, they did so as husband and wife. It was intended that the relationship would be a long-term one, as a family. Even after the separation, Mr. Blodgett continued to pursue his desire for a long-term relationship. 2. Bel-Aire Estates [15] Bel-Aire Estates was purchased from Ms. Pedersen's parents in August, 1991. It included two mobile homes, #75 and #78, two duplexes, #101/102 and 103/104, a house, #106, the manager's and office unit and a laundromat. [16] Before the purchase of Bel-Aire Estates, the parties kept their assets separate. Each had their own bank accounts. Mr. Blodgett purchased four mobile homes, using, in part, his own funds, and the rest through financing he obtained from the Bank of Montreal. Each was registered in his name alone. However, that changed with the purchase of Bel-Aire Estates. As noted, it was registered in joint tenancy. As a result, the first mortgage granted to the Federal Business Development Bank, and the second mortgage given to the Kolodychuks, were granted by both Ms. Pedersen and Mr. Blodgett. Further, a loan was taken in the amount of $90,000 to provide the funds necessary to complete the purchase. That loan was apparently obtained by Mr. Blodgett, and used to consolidate his existing loans with the Bank of Montreal relating to the purchase of the mobile homes previously purchased by him, and other assets. However, all payments on it were made from the account of Bel-Aire Estates, which was in both names. [17] The evidence establishes that the reason for the purchase of the mobile home park was to provide an investment for the family. The Kolodychuks offered to sell it, but conditional on Ms. Pedersen agreeing, and the property being put in joint names. Ms. Pedersen was initially reluctant, as, based on her experience with the mobile home parks owned by her parents, she considered the management of them to be a nuisance. However, Mr. Blodgett convinced her by explaining the financial advantages to the family, as illustrated by how well the Kolodychuks had been able to do, and suggesting how it might enable him to retire early from logging. Again, that was seen as a benefit to the family. The two conditions placed on the sale by the Kolodychuks, that Ms. Pedersen agree and that the property be in joint ownership, were thus agreed to by Mr. Blodgett. Further, one of the conditions for the financing provided by the Federal Business Development Bank was that there be on-site management, as Mr. Blodgett's employment took him away. That was to be provided by Ms. Pedersen. Her previous involvement in the mobile home parks operated by her parents was a consideration in that regard. The management of the mobile home park by Ms. Pedersen was thus integral to the Federal Business Development Bank financing. I accept, also, that the Kolodychuks would not have granted a second mortgage to an unrelated purchaser, particularly on the terms which were granted. The interest rate on the mortgage was 10%, as compared to 16% which Mr. Harrington indicated would have been the rate if a mortgage was granted by Northland Mortgages. Further, the only payments required on the Kolodychuk mortgage were of interest, which was a requirement of the Federal Business Development Bank mortgage. I thus conclude that without the involvement of Ms. Pedersen, Mr. Blodgett would not have been able to purchase Bel-Aire Estates, at least on the terms on which it was purchased. [18] I thus find that, at the time of purchase, it was the common intention of Mr. Blodgett and Ms. Pedersen that Bel-Aire Estates would be owned and operated jointly, for the benefit of both as a family unit. It was not intended at any time that Ms. Pedersen would hold her one-half interest in the property as a trustee for Mr. Blodgett. In fact, there is no evidence indicating such an intent. [19] That common intention was confirmed by the way Bel-Aire Estates was operated following its purchase. Particularly before Ms. Pedersen became employed at J & D Meats in December, 1993, both were involved in the operation of it. Ms. Pedersen was primarily responsible for collecting rent and cleaning the units between tenants, while Mr. Blodgett was primarily responsible for major repairs and renovations. Both participated in such things as clearing snow and minor renovations. Further, the finances were run jointly: the bank account was in both names, and the income was divided evenly on the parties' tax returns. Although that was undoubtedly done on the suggestion of the accountant, Mr. Patterson, to minimize taxes payable, it was not questioned by Mr. Blodgett. [20] I thus conclude that it was the common intention of Ms. Pedersen and Mr. Blodgett that Bel-Aire Estates would be owned jointly, and operated for their joint benefit. That being the case, each party is entitled to an equal interest in it, subject to adjustments I will deal with later. [21] Ms. Pedersen has now moved to Keremeos with her new husband. It is agreed between the parties that she should have no further part in the management of the mobile home park. The best course of action thus appears to be that either Mr. Blodgett should buy out her interest, or the property should be sold, and the net proceeds divided equally, after necessary adjustments. There is a claim in the Statement of Claim that Mr. Blodgett compensate Ms. Pedersen for her interest in the property, or for an order that it be divided and sold pursuant to the Partition of Property Act. That order will be granted, with Mr. Blodgett having an option to purchase Ms. Pedersen's interest in the property. If that is not done within three months, or such other time as agreed between the parties or by order by the court, the property will be listed for sale, at a price to be agreed between the parties or, in absence of an agreement, as ordered by the court. As Mr. Blodgett is in Quesnel, and is managing the mobile home park, he will have conduct of sale. Following the sale, the net proceeds, after payment of real estate commissions and legal fees, will be divided equally between the parties, subject to necessary adjustments. [22] I also find that the 1981 Ford 4X4 with plow, purchased by Mr. Blodgett from the Kolodychuks, should be considered as an asset of Bel-Aire Estates, and thus subject to the joint ownership of the parties. It was used by the Kolodychuks for snow clearing at Bel-Aire Estates; it was purchased for the same purpose. It was shown on the financial statements as an asset of Bel-Aire Estates. [23] If the property is to be sold, the mobile homes purchased with it, Units #75 and #78, and the 1981 Ford 4X4 with plow should be included as assets, as should tools and other equipment purchased and paid for from the Bel-Aire account. [24] If Mr. Blodgett wishes to purchase the interest of Ms. Pedersen in Bel-Aire, that must be based on the most current valuations available. With respect to the mobile home park, that is provided by the appraisal prepared by Mr. Kennedy, dated February 3, 1998. He gave an estimated value of $683,000. That amount was not seriously challenged on cross- examination. That appraisal included the duplexes, the house, the management and office unit, and the laundromat, but not the two mobile homes, units #75 and #78. It also made no allowance for the replacement of the run-down storage building with a new garage, at an approximate cost of $9,000. Mobile home #75 was valued at $23,000 by Mr. Kennedy in April, 1997, and he advised, by letter of February 19, 1998, that there had been no change to that date. It was valued at $17,500 by Mr. Andres in January, 1998. Unit #78 was valued at $23,000 by Mr. Kennedy in April, 1997, with no change in his letter updating that to February, 1998. Mr. Andres valued it at $21,000 in January, 1998. As I have no way to assess the relative merits of the appraisals, I will take mid-range values of $20,250 for unit #75 and $22,000 for unit #78. Some additional value must be attributed to the new garage, which I arbitrarily assess at $5,000. That gives a value for the mobile home park and units, rounded-off, of $730,000. In addition, Ms. Pedersen is entitled to be compensated for one-half of the value of the equipment, including the 1981 Ford 4X4 with plow, and the balance in the bank account as at the date of trial. For purposes of convenience, I set the date to establish that as December 31, 1998, the fiscal year end of the company. However, I have no evidence before me as to the value of those various items as of that date. If either party considers that date to be inequitable, or if the parties are not able to reach agreement with respect to the value of the other assets, they have liberty to apply for further directions. 3. Other assets [25] The situation with respect to the assets other than Bel- Aire Estates is entirely different. As noted earlier, the mobile homes purchased before Bel-Aire Estates were purchased by Mr. Blodgett in his own name, using funds he had available, and financing he obtained. That also applies to the 1987 Chevrolet pickup, the 1984 Slumber Queen camper, 12 foot boat and boat loader, the Ultralight plane kit, and the various snowmobiles. The only exceptions are the 1981 Ford 4X4 with plow, which I have already dealt with, and the 1989 Honda. [26] The 1989 Honda was purchased by Mr. Blodgett, and financed by a loan obtained by him. However, Ms. Pedersen was the primary operator of it. It was traded in on the 1991 Honda in 1994. As well as the amount allowed by the trade-in, the rest of the price was paid by Mr. Blodgett's Mastercard and his cheque. However, a cheque made payable to Ms. Pedersen from C.K. Contracting in the amount of $12,000 was deposited in Mr. Blodgett's account at the same time. I conclude that money was intended to cover the balance of the purchase price on the 1991 Honda. Again, Ms. Pedersen was the primary operator. I thus conclude that there was a common intention that the 1989 Honda, and, when it was purchased, the 1991 Honda, would be shared, and would be owned jointly. I thus conclude that Ms. Pedersen is entitled to a one-half interest in the proceeds of sale of the 1991 Honda, which are in the amount of $6,400, and are being held in trust. Each party claims there was damage to that vehicle when it was in the possession of the other. However, I find it has not been established when, where, or how the damage occurred, and it thus cannot be attributed to either party. [27] There is a question with respect to various assets purchased by Mr. Blodgett prior to the purchase of Bel-Aire Estates. They include the four mobile homes, a 1987 Chevrolet 4X4 pickup, and registered retirement savings plans purchased by him during the relationship, in the amount of $3,905 in 1989 and $4,500 in 1990. The debts for those assets were consolidated into the $90,000 loan obtained from the Bank of Montreal to complete the purchase of Bel-Aire Estates. All payments on that loan were made from the Bel-Aire Estates account held jointly in the names of Ms. Pedersen and Mr. Blodgett. Notwithstanding that fact, I do not find that there was a common intention that they would be shared. There was certainly no expressed statement of such intention. They remained registered in the name of Mr. Blodgett alone, and he dealt with them as he saw fit. I thus consider them to be the sole assets of Mr. Blodgett. There will, however, have to be an accounting for payments made by Bel-Aire with respect to those assets. [28] With respect to assets purchased after Bel-Aire Estates was bought, again I find no common intention that they would be shared. With the exception of the units included with the purchase of Bel-Aire Estates, they were purchased in the name of Mr. Blodgett. Payments on loans were made through Bel-Aire Estates, and they were shown as assets of Bel-Aire on the financial statements. However, I consider that to be as a matter of convenience, and not sufficient evidence to establish a common intention. Again, there may be an accounting required to determine the amounts paid with respect to those assets by Bel-Aire Estates. [29] C.K. Contracting was set up in the name of Ms. Pedersen and she provided some services to it. It was set up in her name at the request of Mr. Blodgett, to avoid the assessment of Spike Logging Ltd. by the Workers' Compensation Board. Ms. Pedersen was thus the only authorized signatory, and was responsible for the bookkeeping and the banking, as well as doing some minimal field work and supervision. However, all of those actions were done under the direction of Mr. Blodgett, who considered himself the owner of C.K. Contracting. The sole purpose for that business was to provide his logging services. The services provided by Ms. Pedersen were relatively trifling, and not sufficient to give her an interest in that business. I thus consider that Ms. Pedersen holds C.K. Contracting in trust for Mr. Blodgett. She will thus transfer any interest in the busines to him. He will be responsible for all amounts due with respect to it, including employee remittances and G.S.T. [30] A claim has been made with respect to property at 950 North Fraser Drive, which was obtained as part of Mr. Blodgett's share of a house construction project which was funded from his personal account and from the account of C.K. Contracting. However, Ms. Pedersen provided no services to that, either monetary or non-monetary, and that part of her claim is dismissed. IV UNJUST ENRICHMENT A. Law [31] In the decision of Pettkus v. Becker (1980), 19 R.F.L. (2d) 165, the Supreme Court of Canada set out principles with respect to unjust enrichment, and the remedies of a monetary judgment or finding of constructive trust. Those principles were summarized by Coultas J. in Ross v. Dunn, unreported, July 29, 1994, No. A914038, Vancouver Registry, Supreme Court of British Columbia, as follows: 1. The doctrines of unjust enrichment and constructive trust apply to a common-law relationship. 2. Unjust enrichment lies in: a) an enrichment b) a deprivation c) an absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment. 3. Where a claimant did not confer the benefit of work and services as a valid gift and was under no obligation, contractual, statutory or otherwise, to confer them on the recipient, there will be an absence of juristic reason for the enrichment. 4. A court should first determine whether a claim for unjust enrichment has been made out. If it has, the court must then determine the appropriate remedy. 5. Where unjust enrichment is found, two remedies are possible: an award of money for the value of services rendered, i.e., quantum meruit, or where monetary damages would be inadequate or incapable of being paid, and where there is a direct link to the property which is the subject of the trust, a finding of constructive trust. 6. Finding that the claimant is entitled to a remedy for unjust enrichment does not imply that there is a constructive trust. The plaintiff must establish a direct link to the property which is the subject of the trust, by reasons of the plaintiff's contribution. 7. A minor, indirect contribution to the property is insufficient to establish a constructive trust. 8. For a monetary award, it is appropriate to take the "value received" approach; if the award is not monetary the courts should adopt the "value survived" approach. 9. When quantifying the trust, it is appropriate to consider the plaintiff's share of all family assets. 10. It is not necessary that there be evidence of promises to marry or to compensate the claimant for the services provided. Rather, where a person provides "spousal services" to another, those services should be taken as having been given with the expectation of compensation, unless there is evidence to the contrary. 11. Indirect financial contributions to the maintenance of property will be sufficient to establish the requisite property connection for the imposition of a constructive trust. [32] Pettkus v. Becker followed the earlier decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Peter v. Beblow (1993), 77 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1 in which McLachlin J. noted, at page 10, that household and childcare services are worthy of recognition by the court, as they are of great value, not only to the family, but to the other spouse. B. Findings of Fact [33] Counsel for Ms. Pedersen submitted that there has been an enrichment, since Mr. Blodgett "obtained the services of a loving spouse, a housekeeper, a business manager, a bookkeeper, a business partner, a consultant, a guarantor, a grounds keeper, a custodian, an interior designer, a renovator, a labourer, an advocate, a "gopher" and a volunteer". Counsel for Mr. Blodgett conceded that Ms. Pedersen did do "some bookkeeping, banking, bill paying, rent collection, grass cutting and leaf raking" but submitted that the value of the benefits conferred by Mr. Blodgett on Ms. Pedersen exceeded the value of the services rendered by her. [34] Most of the services provided by Ms. Pedersen, as referred to by both parties, relate to the operation of Bel-Aire Estates. As I have already found that Ms. Pedersen is entitled to a one-half interest in that asset, it is not necessary to deal with the issue of whether there was an unjust enrichment relating to it. In any event, however, the value of the services provided by Ms. Pedersen with respect to Bel-Aire Estates would not exceed the value of the one-half interest to which I have found she is entitled. The issue, then, is whether there was an enrichment of Mr. Blodgett as a result of the services provided by Ms. Pedersen to the assets other than Bel-Aire Estates. Of those assets, the only ones to which the services of Ms. Pedersen relate are the mobile homes in the name of Mr. Blodgett. She was primarily responsible for collecting the rents for those units, and for cleaning them between tenants, and she also provided some assistance in renovations. She also provided household and domestic services which freed up Mr. Blodgett's time, enabling him to do the major repairs and renovations. She also made a minor monetary contribution to those units: as a result of income splitting, the taxes payable by the family unit were reduced, thus making more funds available for such things as the renovations; she co-signed the chattel mortgages required for the loans for unit 72 and the mobile home located in Williams Lake and occupied by Mr. Blodgett's sister. More significantly, funds for the renovations came from the account of Bel-Aire Estates, and were not repaid, even when the units were sold. However, no record was kept in the books of Bel-Aire distinguishing amounts spent on renovations on the trailers owned by Mr. Blodgett from the renovations on those owned jointly. The services provided by Ms. Pedersen were particularly important in the periods when Mr. Blodgett was away from Quesnel as a result of his employment in the logging industry. [35] On the other hand, it is clear that the services provided by Mr. Blodgett with respect to the mobile homes, both monetary and non-monetary, greatly exceed those provided by Ms. Pedersen. It was his funds which provided the down payments for purchase of the various units, he obtained the financing, primarily in his own name, and did extensive repairs and renovations. I also accept that he did most of the routine maintenance of the mobile homes. One of the tenants, Marlene Richardson, described him as a workacholic who worked on the mobile home park all the time that he was at home. [36] Counsel for Mr. Blodgett submitted that the value of the services provided by Ms. Pedersen was greatly outweighed by the benefits received, such as accommodation, meals, clothing, medical benefits and use of vehicles for herself and Ashley, for which she made no payment. A large part of that is attributable to the income received from Bel-Aire Estates, to which she was entitled to a one-half share. However, there was also income derived from the mobile homes owned by Mr. Blodgett from which she benefited. [37] In total, I am not satisfied that Ms. Pedersen has shown that the value of the services rendered by her with respect to the mobile homes in the name of Mr. Blodgett, which enriched him, exceeded the benefits received by her. I consider her contribution to the mobile homes, as distinct from the mobile home parks, to be minor. However, I am also not satisfied that Mr. Blodgett is entitled to compensation for the benefits provided to Ms. Pedersen, as claimed in the Amended Counter- Claim. The exceptions are: the cost of renovations to the trailers owned by Mr. Blodgett paid from the account of Bel- Aire Estates; the payments made from the Bel-Aire account with respect to that portion of the $90,000 loan relating to Mr. Blodgett's assets; and the payments from the Bel-Aire account on mobile homes purchased by Mr. Blodgett after Bel-Aire Estates was bought. [38] In summary, I conclude that no enrichment of Mr. Blodgett has been proved as a result of the services, either monetary or non-monetary, provided by Ms. Pedersen to the assets other than those comprising Bel-Aire Estates. On the other hand, I am not satisfied that Ms. Pedersen has been enriched as a result of the services provided, and benefits received, by her. That being the case, there has been no corresponding deprivation of either party. The claims for unjust enrichment, and the resultant remedies of either a monetary award or a finding of constructive trust, are thus dismissed. V ACCOUNTING [39] In the pleadings, neither party claimed an accounting, except for the limited purpose of dealing with assets disposed of by Mr. Blodgett. However, the need for an accounting may be implied from the claims of both parties for compensation for benefits received by the other. A difficulty arises as the particulars of an accounting were not specifically dealt with either in the evidence or submissions. In order to reach a just and equitable result, it is necessary that some adjustments be made with respect to the interest each of the parties will receive. In making these adjustments, I am doing so without the benefit of submissions. There may thus be matters which have not been covered, or matters which the parties wish to deal with differently. They will thus have liberty to apply for a further accounting. [40] First, some adjustments must be made regarding the amount of the entitlement of Ms. Pedersen to her share of Bel-Aire Estates. In determining those adjustments, the approach I have taken is that both monetary and non-monetary benefits provided while the two parties owned Bel-Aire Estates and lived together were contributions made to a jointly owned asset, and should be shared equally. Clearly Mr. Blodgett contributed more financially during that period, but recognition must be given to the services provided by Ms. Pedersen, both in management of the mobile home park, and in household responsibilities, which enabled Mr. Blodgett to be earning that income. Ms. Pedersen was not employed outside Bel-Aire Estates from the date of its purchase in August, 1991, until she became employed part-time at J & D Meats in December, 1993. As Mr. Blodgett was working full time during this period, from early morning until late afternoon, except for during the time of lay-off due to break- up, Ms. Pedersen was primarily responsible for the management of the mobile home park. Even after she started work at J & D Meats, she worked part-time for the first 12 months and then had flexible time, so that she was still able to provide management services at Bel-Aire. I thus conclude that Ms. Pedersen did provide the majority of the management services for Bel-Aire during the period of the co-habitation. That was particularly so, obviously, when Mr. Blodgett was working away from Quesnel, in Bear Lake and Bella Coola, in 1995. Since the separation, the services provided by Ms. Pedersen before the separation have been done by Mr. Blodgett himself, although he has also had to hire his brother and Arnold Hamm to assist (although Mr. Hamm does some things not previously done by Ms. Pedersen, such as trimming trees and digging out stumps). Ms. Pedersen did also make a financial contribution during this time, by way of income splitting. As a result of that, she gave up tax refunds to which she would otherwise have been entitled, and had reduced child tax credits and G.S.T. entitlements. That enabled Mr. Blodgett to pay a reduced amount of taxes. Mr. Patterson calculated that, as a result of the income splitting, Mr. Blodgett saved taxes in the period from 1991 to 1997 of $18,475. That can be considered as a financial contribution by Ms. Pedersen to the operation of Bel- Aire Estates. Both parties benefitted from those savings. During the period they were together and operating Bel-Aire Estates, each contributed, to his or her abilities, to the operation and development of it. [41] Having said that, it would not be equitable for Ms. Pedersen to share either in assets contributed by Mr. Blodgett before, or to, the purchase of the mobile home park, or to share fully in the earnings after separation, when she had no part in the management of it. With respect to the period leading up to the purchase of Bel-Aire Estates, then, Mr. Blodgett will be entitled to a credit for the sum of $38,934.31 contributed from his funds to the purchase of the mobile home park. I do not consider that there was any equivalent contribution by Ms. Pedersen. It was submitted, on her behalf, that Ms. Pedersen should receive credit as the price for the purchase of Bel-Aire Estates from her parents was less than the market value, and for the generous terms of the second mortgage granted by the Kolodychuks. I do not accept that submission. First, I am not satisfied that the sale price to Ms. Pedersen and Mr. Blodgett of $450,000 was less than the actual value, when one takes into account that if the property was sold through a real estate agent a commission would have been payable. I also consider that any benefit conferred was from Mr. and Mrs. Kolodychuk to both Ms. Pedersen and Mr. Blodgett, on the basis that they had formed a long-term relationship. It is thus very different from a contribution in cash made by Mr. Blodgett from assets he had prior to the relationship. [42] Mr. Patterson has prepared what has been referred to as a Statement of Partners Equity which shows various funds going in an out of the Bel-Aire account during the period of the co- habitation. However, as noted above, to the extent those were financial contributions by Mr. Blodgett from his earnings or other assets, I find he should not be entitled to any credit for them, as they were part of his contribution to the jointly held asset. [43] On the other hand, as I have held that Ms. Pedersen is not entitled to an interest in the mobile homes registered in the name of Mr. Blodgett, there must be an accounting for monies paid from the account of Bel-Aire Estates or paid into that account with respect to those units. [44] The first of these adjustments is for funds of Bel-Aire used to renovate and upgrade the mobile homes registered in the name of Mr. Blodgett. A distinction must be drawn between amounts spent for routine repairs and maintenance, on the one hand, and major renovations or upgrading on the other. The former are expenses deducted from income, and thus reduced the net income available for use of the family. No adjustment is needed for them. Renovations and upgrading, on the other hand, increased the value of the units. The most significant of those was likely on unit #91, on which Mr. Blodgett worked for more than a year after its purchase before it was available for occupation. It was purchased in October, 1993 for $17,000, and, taking the middle of the range between the appraisals of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Andres, had a value of $31,500 in 1998. There was evidence of extensive renovations in other units. Mr. Patterson did attempt to allocate the expenses, including the cost of repairs and maintenance, between the mobile homes owned by Mr. Blodgett and the mobile home park. He did that on the basis of the number of units owned, except for some major repairs relating to the trailer park in 1997. Based on that, he calculated a cost for repairs and maintenance for the trailers owned by Mr. Blodgett in the period from 1991 to 1997 totalling $16,345. However, there is no break-down between repairs and maintenance, on one hand, and renovations and upgrading on the other hand. I thus arbitrarily attribute $10,000 as the amount of the funds of Bel-Aire Estates used to up-grade the mobile homes owned by Mr. Blodgett, and for which he should account. [45] The next item is payments made from the Bel-Aire account with respect to that portion of the $90,000 loan relating to Mr. Blodgett's assets. I am not able to tell, on the material before me, the amount of that. The parties will thus have liberty to apply with respect to that item, if it cannot be agreed. [46] The next adjustment relates to payments made from the Bel- Aire account for mobile homes purchased by Mr. Blodgett after Bel-Aire Estates was bought by himself and Ms. Pedersen. Again, I do not have sufficient information to enable me to make a calculation of that amount. It will be off-set by any amounts paid into the account of Bel-Aire from the sale proceeds of mobile homes owned by Mr. Blodgett. [47] Next relates to payment of income tax during the period of co-habitation. By order of R. D. Wilson, J. granted January 12, 1988, the income taxes of Ms. Pedersen relating to the income attributed to her by Bel-Aire Estates were paid from the account of Bel-Aire Estates. However, her 1995 income tax in the amount of $2,515, was not paid from that account. Each party should be entitled to have his or her income taxes relating to income earned during the period of co-habitation paid from the Bel-Aire account. Ms. Pedersen is thus entitled to a credit of $2,515. Each party will be responsible for his or her own income taxes relating to income earned after the date of separation. [48] In the period since the separation in October, 1995, Mr. Blodgett will be entitled to credit for financial contributions made, and for his management of the mobile home park, as there was no equivalent contribution by Ms. Pedersen. Units #62 and #81 were sold to help discharge the second mortgage to the Kolodychuks. Mr. Blodgett is entitled to a credit for the amount of the funds applied to that mortgage, in the amount of $64,519.51. Mr. Blodgett also paid $10,000 of his own funds towards the discharge of that mortgage. He is entitled to a credit for that. [49] With respect to the income earned by Bel-Aire Estates since the separation, that should be divided equally, subject to an allowance for management services provided by Mr. Blodgett. In that regard, and in the absence of other evidence, I accept the approach allowing for management fees at 5% of the gross income of the mobile home park as employed by Mr. Kennedy in the income approach in his appraisals. Mr. Patterson has attempted to allocate the income from the mobile home park between the mobile homes owned by Mr. Blodgett and the jointly owned mobile home park. Although there are some assumptions made in that assessment which may be questionable, I accept it as a fair allocation. He calculated the revenue attributable to the mobile home park, as distinct from the trailers, in 1995 to be $86,565, in 1996 to be $91,905, and in 1997 to be $95,810. Pro-rating the revenue for 1995, for the two months following the separation, the revenue would be $14,427. A reasonable allowance for management services in that period, at 5%, is $721. For 1996, at 5% of $91,905, the allowance would $4,595, while in 1997 it would be $4,790. The income for 1998 has not yet been calculated, but Mr. Blodgett will be entitled to an allowance for management services for that period, and also for the period until the property is sold, or he buys out the interest of Ms. Pedersen. In the meantime, apart from that allowance for management services, Ms. Pedersen is entitled to one-half of the net income attributable to the mobile home park. A final determination of that amount will have to await the purchase of her interest by Mr. Blodgett, or the sale of the mobile home park. It may also be that, if she receives one-half of the bank account of Bel- Aire Estates as of December 31, 1998, she will receive some share of those profits. I do not have the information before me to determine that, so, again, the parties will have liberty to apply if that cannot be determined by agreement. [50] If, as I have ordered, each party is entitled to share in the income from Bel-Aire Estates since the separation, each should be responsible for his or her own personal expenses. By order of Master Chamberlist dated December 11, 1996, Bel-Aire Estates was ordered to reimburse each of Ms. Pedersen and Mr. Blodgett for basic B.C. Telephone and cablevision rates, and B.C. Medical premiums for each of them and Ashley, effective January 1, 1996, and to continue making ongoing payments. Those payments were made until Ms. Pedersen vacated mobile home #91, which she occupied from January, 1996 until March, 1998. There is evidence with respect to the amounts paid for the benefit of Ms. Pedersen, but not Mr. Blodgett, so those are amounts which will have to be resolved by the parties, or be the subject of a further application to the court. [51] On May 12, 1997, I ordered payment of permanent lump sum child support by Mr. Blodgett in the amount of $10,000. That amount has not yet been paid. Ms. Pedersen will be entitled to credit for that amount, plus interest from that date until the date of payment, at court order interest rates. VI CONCLUSION [52] In summary, I conclude that both Mr. Blodgett and Ms. Pedersen intended their relationship to be a long-term one. In order to provide financial security for the family unit of themselves and Ashley, they jointly purchased Bel-Aire Estates. I am not satisfied that Ms. Pedersen holds her interest in trust for Mr. Blodgett. As she has now left the Quesnel area, Mr. Blodgett will be entitled to buy out her interest; if he is unwilling or unable to do so, the property and assets of Bel- Aire Estates will be sold, and the proceeds divided evenly, subject to various adjustments necessary to do equity between the parties. On the other hand, I find that Ms. Pedersen has not established a claim to the other assets registered in the name of Mr. Blodgett, either on the basis of a resulting trust or on the basis of unjust enrichment. Her claim to those assets, or compensation for her interest in them, is thus dismissed. [53] I have attempted to deal with an accounting for various items in this judgment, but have had difficulty in doing so, as they were not specifically addressed either on the evidence or in submissions. I do not criticize counsel for that, as it was not possible to determine the adjustments to be made until it was determined which party has what interest in each of the assets. Counsel thus have liberty to apply with respect to the adjustments I have set out, or with respect to any others which may be required, if they cannot be agreed between the parties. [54] In the course of the trial, Ms. Pedersen did claim certain household items. Some Mr. Blodgett said he does not have, but he did agree that he has, and will deliver to Ms. Pedersen, the ceramic materials, the patch-quilt blanket, the computer stand, and the Encyclopedia Britannica set. There will be an order for delivery of those items. [55] Finally, both counsel have requested liberty to address the issue of costs after Reasons for Judgment have been issued, and that is granted. "A.F. Wilson, J."