What is the basis for a proprietary remedy?

The defendants’ primary argument is that the “threshold” requirement referred to in Peter v. Beblow – a “nexus between the contribution [here one may substitute “Unlawful Finance Charges”] and the property” – was non-existent in this case. In their submission, the trial judge found only that the plaintiffs had paid fees in excess of the criminal interest rate and erred in reasoning that by virtue of this fact, there was a direct link between “the contribution that founds the action and the property in which the constructive trust is claimed.” (Para. 6.) They say that although this finding may have been sufficient to satisfy the ‘deprivation’ element of unjust enrichment, it did not satisfy the second requirement enunciated in Peter v. Beblow for the imposition of the proprietary remedy. In their submission, “No specific property is at issue here which could form the basis of a trust. Indeed, money or monetary compensation is what is being sought” by the plaintiffs.