As I understand it, the first question incorporates the four elements mentioned earlier that are necessary to give rise to an equity in favour of the claimant. In Sabey v. Rommel, this court recently collapsed them into two: a. There was an assurance or representation, attributable to the owner, that the claimant has or will have some right to the property, and b. The claimant relied on this assurance to his or her detriment so that it would be unconscionable for the owner to go back on that assurance. [At para. 30.]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.