What is the test for a constructive trust claim based on common law relationship?

In dismissing the claim based on constructive trust, the court concluded at paras. 43 – 46: In my view, this fact situation could not give rise to a reasonable expectation of a share in the property of the defendant by the plaintiff. First, the defendant's conduct throughout was to keep track, with the plaintiff's knowledge, of contributions to the lifestyle of the parties. A contribution to that lifestyle was demanded and discussed. Second, no dependency was created. The defendant encouraged and supported the plaintiff in becoming more economically independent and at his expense she improved her career opportunities. Third, at no time did the defendant lead the plaintiff to expect that she was to share equally or at all in property interests unless she was able to contribute substantially financially to the acquisition of assets, which she was not. This is not a case in which the defendant exploited the plaintiff in order to obtain spousal services, thus allowing the defendant to accumulate assets while the plaintiff expended her efforts to build and maintain a family life. In a sense, a reasonable assessment of the relationship was that the defendant, to his financial and emotional detriment, subrogated his goals of an independent lifestyle allowing for outdoor activities (i.e. hiking, kayaking, etc.) free of substantial property obligations to accommodate the plaintiff's dream (which she could not afford on her own) of living on a large rural property, and raising horses and dogs and engaging in time-consuming and resource consuming gardening. The parties clearly had a spousal-like relationship. They lived together sharing much of their lives for almost ten years. But in no sense, did either, intentionally or inadvertently, relinquish financial or career independence in order to maintain the relationship. Quite the contrary, the plaintiff was able to change careers for the better. Further, the plaintiff was able, because of the financial support of the defendant, to pursue expensive hobbies, particularly the keeping of horses, attend school, live in a comfortable house and accumulate assets. To place the facts of this case within the principles of Peter v. Beblow is to advance the law from valuing spousal services when given to the detriment of the giver to simply creating property interests based on the establishment of a common law relationship. That is not my understanding of the law. Clearly then, I can find no enrichment of the defendant, nor a corresponding detriment to the plaintiff.