What is the test for an unjust enrichment claim?

The three tests to establish an unjust enrichment are set out in Peter v. Beblow (1993), 1993 CanLII 126 (SCC), 101 D.L.R. (4th) 621 (S.C.C.) at p.630. The wife must establish an enrichment, a corresponding deprivation and that there is an absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment itself. She contends that her husband was enriched because he was able to reduce the balance of his student loans while preserving an investment that he was to liquidate for that purpose. As I understand her argument, the corresponding deprivation was the loss of family funds used to pay down the husband’s student loan. Finally, she says there is no juristic reason for the respondent to be enriched by retaining the mutual funds.