How has the Court considered a step-daughter's expectation of inheritance in the context of the equitable obligation of her father to her step-step-distant?

In concurring reasons, McEachern C.J.B.C., expressed his view of the effect of the step-daughter’s expectation of inheritance thus: It was part of the dynamics of this family of three that the daughter was to inherit the family home when the survivor of the two parents died. When she told her parents of her plans to purchase a condominium, they urged her not to do so because, as they said, she would have the family home for herself. This particular dynamic, which I would characterize as a reasonable expectation on her part, is an important element in the third element of unjust enrichment. In this respect, see Pettkus v. Becker 1980 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834 at p. 849, per Dickson J.: As for the third requirement, I hold that where one person in a relationship tantamount to spousal prejudices herself in the reasonable expectation of receiving an interest in property and the other person in the relationship freely accepts benefits conferred by the first person in circumstances where he knows or ought to have known of that reasonable expectation, it would be unjust to allow the recipient to retain it. [emphasis added by McEachern C.J.B.C.] ... Thus, I conclude that the reasonable expectation of the daughter that she was to receive the house formed an important part of the injustice that arose when, at the time of his death, her father failed to honour the equitable obligation he assumed over the course of so many years (paras 84-86).