Deconstructing the Constructive Trust

Authors

  • Leonard I. Rotman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29173/alr1477

Abstract

With the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in Soulos v. Korkontzilas, the constructive trust has again become the subject of contention in Canadian law. Over the years, jurists and scholars have generated significant debate over the nature and function of the constructive trust and where it ought to be used. While constructive trusts have been implemented in a variety of situations, there has not always been agreement over whether all such uses are appropriate. This debate continued in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Soulos. While the majority decision in Soulos has clarified the availability of the constructive trust in Canadian law, the open-endedness of the majority judgment and the vociferous dissent suggest that the issue may not yet be put to rest. In this article, the author critically examines the Soulos judgment and its potential effects on the law of constructive trusts in Canada.

Downloads

Published

1999-04-01

Issue

Vol 37, No 1: Special Issue: Symposium on Restitution

Section

Articles

License

For Editions following and including Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

For Editions prior to Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.

Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:

  1. Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
  2. Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
  3. Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
  4. Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.

To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.