What is the test for determining whether or not a party has been unjustly deprived of a portion of their income?

Where the court finds enrichment and a corresponding deprivation, it must then determine whether or not there is a juristic reason for the enrichment. This requires a two-part analysis. First, the plaintiff bears the onus of showing there is no juristic reason to deny recovery under any established category of common law, equitable or statutory obligation. In the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment under an established category of obligation, the plaintiff will have made out a prima facie case of unjust enrichment. However, the prima facie case is rebuttable if the defendant establishes that there is another reason for denying recovery. At this second stage of the inquiry, the court may review all of the circumstances of the transaction, and consider whether there is some other reason to deny recovery having regard to the reasonable expectations of the parties and any public policy considerations: Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co., 2004 SCC 25, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629 at paras. 44-46.

Where the court finds an unjust enrichment, before it makes an order for a constructive trust, it must be satisfied that monetary compensation would be an inadequate remedy, and that there is a link between the services rendered by the plaintiff and the property in which the trust is claimed: Peter v. Beblow at 997.