What is the test for the purpose of a claim for enrichment of assets in a matrimonial relationship?

In Peter v. Beblow, supra, Cory J. stated at p. 1017 that with regard to juristic reasons for the enrichment, the test put forward is an objective one: The parties entering a marriage or a common law relationship will rarely have considered the question of compensation for benefits. If asked, they might say that because they loved their partner, each worked to achieve the common goal of creating a home and establishing a good life for themselves. It is just and reasonable that the situation be viewed objectively and that an inference be made that, in the absence of evidence establishing a contrary intention, the parties expected to share in the assets created in a matrimonial or quasi-matrimonial relationship, should it end.