The plaintiff referred to his purchase of the house as an "investment". In dealing with the settlement proceeds in the way he did, the plaintiff converted them into a family asset. Following the reasoning in Boel v. Boel (supra), there must be a reapportionment in favour of the plaintiff under S. 51. I would not think it appropriate to encroach on the capital sum in the circumstances of this case. With respect to the home's appreciation in value, however, I think that in "investing" his injury award in a family home, the preservation and maintenance of which required some contribution from the defendant, the plaintiff created a situation requiring some adjustment in the defendant's favour.
"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.