Does the contribution of homemaking and child care contribute to the value of a family home?

The decision in Peter v. Beblow, supra, acknowledges that indirect contributions such as homemaking and child care can be said to be linked to the family residence. This is so by virtue of the fact that this frees money that would otherwise pay for those services to be available to pay down the mortgage and other debts, thereby increasing the net value of the asset. I do not, however, interpret that conclusion to mean that such indirect contributions can give rise to damages or a constructive trust interest in the various other assets (such as in this case the common shares) to which there is no link.