F. Issue One: What is the Correct Interpretation and Application of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Soulos?
 Both parties proceeded on the basis that Soulos was the
governing precedent and that unjust enrichment was the basis
of any possible constructive trust claim in this case. But their
positions on the proper interpretation and application of Soulos,
described above, could not be further apart.
 For the reasons that follow, I would reject the appellant’s
argument that Soulos limits the remedy to the two defined situations of unjust enrichment and wrongful acts, and otherwise
abolished the doctrine of good conscience constructive trusts as a
general source of equitable jurisdiction.
(1) The fact situation in Soulos
 In Soulos, a real estate broker entered into negotiations
to purchase a commercial building on behalf of his client, but
then arranged for his wife to purchase the building instead. The
client brought an action to compel the broker to convey the property to him on the basis that the broker breached his fiduciary
duty and that breach gave rise to a constructive trust. However,
in the meantime, the property’s value had declined so that the
client had suffered no financial loss from the broker’s perfidy.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court affirmed this court’s decision
requiring the broker to convey the property to the client.
(2) The issue determined in Soulos
 The specific legal issue determined by the Supreme
Court in Soulos was “whether a constructive trust over property
may be imposed in the absence of enrichment of the defendant
and corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff”, as McLachlin J.
stated, writing for the majority, at para. 1. She delineated, at
para. 45, the circumstances in which a court could impose a constructive trust based specifically on wrongful acts including
fraud and breach of loyalty.
 The debate about the intended reach of Soulos often
focuses on paras. 43 and 45 of the decision, which I set out here
for convenience. Justice McLachlin stated, at para. 43:
I conclude that in Canada, under the broad umbrella of good conscience,
constructive trusts are recognized both for wrongful acts like fraud and
breach of duty of loyalty, as well as to remedy unjust enrichment and corre-
sponding deprivation. While cases often involve both a wrongful act and
unjust enrichment, constructive trusts may be imposed on either ground:
where there is a wrongful act but no unjust enrichment and corresponding
deprivation; or where there is an unconscionable unjust enrichment in the
absence of a wrongful act, as in Pettkus v. Becker, supra. Within these two