available in the action against her husband’s estate, so the lawyer had not been negligent. The trial judge found that a constructive trust claim would have succeeded, but the court of
appeal reversed the decision.
 In the underlying fact situation, the husband failed to
keep in good standing the existing life insurance policies designating his former spouse, as he was obliged to do under a separation agreement. Instead, he purchased other life insurance
policies and designated his estate as the beneficiary. The Court
of Appeal considered the former spouse’s claim to fall under the
“wrongful act” aspect of Soulos. The trial judge had found there
was no fiduciary relationship between the spouses, and the
Court of Appeal accepted that finding. The result, Garson J.A.
noted, at para. 47, was that “the first of the Soulos conditions
for the imposition of a good conscience trust [resulting from
a wrongful act] cannot be fulfilled”.
 Justice Garson went on to find, at para. 53, there was
“an insufficient proprietary connection between the wrongful act
and the existing life insurance policies”. The life insurance proceeds at issue were not proven to be generated from the policies
referred to and required under the separation agreement. As a
result, there was an insufficient proprietary connection between
the wrongful act and the existing life insurance policies. Garson
J.A. considered a proprietary connection to be essential, since to
grant the remedy of a constructive trust without such a connection “would risk extending equitable remedies to almost any
common law breach of contract”: Ladner, at para. 52.
 The trial judge, said Garson J.A. at para. 57, had
wrongly relied on Roberts as having “extended the law as enunciated in Soulos so as to permit the imposition of a constructive
trust” in Ms. Ladner’s favour. This was in error, since Soulos
was not cited in Roberts, and for this reason he cast doubt on its
correctness: Ladner, at paras. 58-59. She then distinguished
Roberts on the basis that, having surrendered any claim to the
property of his former wife, the husband in Roberts “was therefore not entitled to receive the property over which the remedy of
constructive trust was sought”.
 In Love, the contest was between the former wife, who
was designated under his insurance policy, and the deceased’s
son, whom the deceased had wanted to designate. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence to support
rectification. In obiter, Richards J.A. reflected on the appellant’s
unjust enrichment argument that was based on the British
Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in Roberts. He observed,
at para. 45, that Roberts had not been followed by any other