What is the test for determining whether there has been a juristic reason for enrichment in a common law relationship?

The plaintiff's counsel points at least in part to these comments by Cory J. in Peter v. Beblow, supra at p. 1017, that the analysis is objective in determining whether there has been a juristic reason for the enrichment: The test put forward is an objective one. The parties entering a marriage or common law relationship will rarely have considered the question of compensation for benefits. If asked they might say that because they loved their partner, each worked to achieve the common goal of creating a home and establishing a good life for themselves. It is just and reasonable that the situation be viewed objectively and that an inference be made that, in the absence of evidence establishing a contrary intention, the parties expected to share in the assets created in a matrimonial or quasi-matrimonial relationship, should it end. [Emphasis added]