[Ms. Hanrahan] could hardly have more explicitly waived her right to the
[Local Authorities Pension Plan], she did it both in the context of the 2001
agreement during her marriage, and again in the 2003 agreement on separation, where she expressly released any rights arising on death, or out of
any Act of the Province of Alberta.
 There was also evidence that the deceased attempted to
designate his two children as his beneficiaries for the pension,
who were also his estate beneficiaries.
 The application judge undertook a lengthy exposition of
the law of constructive trust, including Soulos. He imposed a
constructive trust on the pension benefit in favour of the estate
on the basis of unjust enrichment. He then went on to consider
the alternative claim advanced, as he said, at para. 62, “under
constructive trust principles, independent of unjust enrichment”.
He considered para. 43 of Soulos, where he noted: “Expansive
language is used in relation to the ability of this equitable remedy
to develop.” He concluded, at para. 65:
Surely it would be against good conscience for Hanrahan to retain this bene-
fit, when there is no evidence to show any equitable basis for her to receive
the benefit, or be entitled to it in contravention of the two matrimonial con-
tracts between the parties. She specifically waived her right to the LAPP,
it was a specific contractual agreement, during the marriage, affirmed again
 There are several Ontario Superior Court cases that follow Shannon and do not mention Soulos. These are Bielny (
separation agreement prevails over designation), Mitchell (original
common intention respecting beneficiaries prevails) and
Schorlemer Estate (separation agreement prevails). Remedial constructive trusts were imposed in these cases.12
Cases refusing a remedial constructive trust
 Ladner is unusual, in that it was a lawyer’s negligence
case. The wife sued her lawyer and the law firm handling her
case for failing to pursue a trust claim for a remedial constructive trust against her former husband’s estate at the same time
as a damages claim. The trust claim was merged in the damages
claim, but by that time the husband’s estate was insolvent. The
defendants asserted that a trust remedy would not have been
12 In the United States, certain jurisdictions have held that a remedial constructive trust will be imposed on insurance proceeds where an insured
breaches a separation agreement to designate a former spouse a beneficiary on an insurance plan. New York is one such jurisdiction: Simonds v.
Simonds (1977), 58 A.D.2d 305, 396 N. Y.S.2d 547 (Sup. Ct. App. Div.), affd
(1998), 45 N. Y.2d 233, 380 N.E.2d 189 (Ct. App.).