The mere existence of long-term cohabitation, even in a de facto relationship, combined with sharing of household expenditure and division of household labour, does not suffice to justify the imposition of a constructive trust over the shared home owned by one cohabitant. A non-admission under UCPR r 166(4) that states the defendants are unable to attest to the truth or otherwise of the allegations constitutes a sufficient 'direct explanation' and does not give rise to a deemed admission under r 166(5).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.