What is the test for establishing a resulting trust when there are common law spouses?

With respect to the plaintiff’s claim, had I not found that a resulting trust had been established, I would have had no difficulty, on the same evidence, concluding that the plaintiff had established that she had an equal interest, with the defendant, in the shares of the company by way of a constructive trust. On the evidence, the plaintiff has shown both a direct and an indirect contribution which constitute an enrichment to the defendant and a corresponding deprivation on her part. In Peter v. Beblow, McLachlin J. canvassed the question of what matters should be considered in determining whether there is an absence of juristic reason for the enrichment in a family case where there are common law spouses. I am satisfied that the case before me falls within the principles which she established and I conclude that, in this case, there is an absence of juristic reason for the enrichment.