a property interest in something owned by the defendant. This is
a two-party structure that makes the plaintiff’s restitutionary
claim especially compelling, since the plaintiff seeks a remedy
directly from the defendant who has been enriched at the plaintiff’s expense. These cases include Pettkus, Sorochan v. Sorochan,  2 S.C.R. 38,  S.C.J. No. 46, Rathwell, Peter
 However, this case falls into a set of fairly common disappointed beneficiary cases concerning the right to life insurance proceeds. Typically, the plaintiff pursues the life insurance
proceeds on the death of the deceased former spouse, in a situation where the deceased had named a new beneficiary, often a
new spouse, who is the defendant. The disappointed beneficiary
cases are different in that they take effectively a three-party
structure: the plaintiff’s target is the defendant beneficiary
and not the deceased. The claim against the defendant, who is
often innocent of any involvement in the deceased’s actions,
seems less compelling than it does in the normal two-party dispute between spouses.
 I observe that in none of the disappointed beneficiary
cases, except for Love, at para. 42, did the court advert to the
fact that what was at issue was not the typical two-party relationship in an unjust enrichment case between the plaintiff and
the defendant, but a three-party relationship. The cases utilize
the rubric of unjust enrichment, but the structural difference is
 Second, the disappointed beneficiary cases constitute a
type of case that, to my mind, fits comfortably with those in the
third and fourth categories I mentioned earlier, described in
Soulos, as “situations where constructive trusts have been recognized in the past”, or “other situations where courts have
found a constructive trust” or “circumstances where its availability has long been recognized”: paras. 21-22 and paras. 34-35.
I return to this discussion below after discussing the cases in
order to better set the context.
The categories of disputed beneficiary cases
 In general terms, the disappointed beneficiary cases fall
into three categories. The first are those in which the plaintiff
succeeds in securing a constructive trust over the insurance proceeds. These include Steeves v. Steeves,  N.B.J. No. 473,
168 N.B.R. (2d) 226 (Q.B.); Roberts v. Martindale,  B.C.J.
No. 1509, 162 D.L.R. (4th) 475 (C.A.); Bielny; Mitchell v. Clarica
Life Insurance Co.,  O.J. No. 6122, 23 E.T.R. (3d) 297
(S.C.J.); Schorlemer Estate v. Schorlemer,  O.J. No. 5049,