What is the test for finding that a plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of unjust enrichment?

The consequence of these findings is that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of unjust enrichment; and the onus shifts to the defendant to show that there is some other valid reason to deny compensation. At this stage, the court must take account of the reasonable expectation of the parties. See Kerr v. Baranow 2009 BCCA 111 at paragraphs 63 – 65.

In this case, the defendant alleges that another valid reason exists to deny recovery to the plaintiff, namely, that he conferred benefits on the plaintiff during the whole of their relationship that were greater than the benefits that she conferred on him. If this allegation is established, then the defendant’s enrichment would not be unjust. See Kerr v. Baranow at paragraph 69.