1. Enrichment: The deceased/estate received a real benefit (e.g., personal care, household management, property/business help).

2. Corresponding deprivation: You sacrificed time, income, or resources.

3. No juristic reason: No legal basis to let the estate keep the benefit (e.g., not a gift, no contract barring payment, no statutory obligation defeating the claim).

• Domestic and caregiving work can be a recognized benefit, even within families.

• Limits: claims are weaker where services were not requested or the benefit is not incontrovertible.

• Step 1: Do established categories (gift/donative intent, contract, statutory duty) justify the enrichment?

• Step 2: If not, the estate can still rebut based on reasonable expectations and public policy.

Courts weigh whether help was gratuitous “acts of love” versus services with an expectation of payment. Modern Ontario cases increasingly award fair compensation where evidence shows substantial, relied-upon services and no true gift.

Courts have upheld quantum meruit where a child provided extensive care, gave up work, and there was an understanding/bargain that they would be compensated (e.g., by inheriting a home). Evidence of that understanding strengthens recovery.

• Clear requests for help or a documented understanding of payment/compensation

• Detailed time logs, expenses, and proof of lost income/opportunity

• Witness statements, texts/emails, POA/medical notes showing reliance on your services

• Monetary award (fair market or reasonable value of services)

• In some cases, constructive trust over specific property