(3) Conclusion on unjust enrichment
 In my view, the application judge did not err in finding
that the respondent’s deprivation consisted of the life insurance
proceeds. He also did not err in finding that the deceased’s irrevocable designation in the appellant’s favour under s. 191 of the
Insurance Act, given his prior oral agreement with the respondent, did not provide a juristic reason to oust the availability of
a constructive trust over the life insurance proceeds, despite the
Richardson Estate decision.
 But I would go further and add that, to the extent that
they fit awkwardly under the rubric of unjust enrichment, the
disappointed beneficiary cases are perhaps better understood as
a genus of cases in which a constructive trust can be imposed via
the third route in Soulos — circumstances where the availability
of a trust has previously been recognized — and the fourth route
— where good conscience otherwise demands it, quite independent of unjust enrichment.
 I would dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.
Her Majesty the Queen v. Martin et al.
[Indexed as: R. v. Martin]
2016 ONCA 840
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Weiler, Simmons and G.J. Epstein JJ.A.
November 8, 2016
Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Jurisdiction — Costs — Crown
proceeding summarily on hybrid charges and trial commencing — Key
Crown witness becoming ill and Crown directing entry of stay of proceedings under s. 579 of Criminal Code — Prior to stay being entered
counsel for defendant advising Crown that would seek costs based on
alleged violation of Charter rights but not bringing costs application
until after stay entered — Summary conviction court not having jurisdiction to grant order of costs against Crown as remedy under s. 24(1)
of Charter for alleged Charter violations once stay was entered —
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 24(1) — Criminal Code,
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 579.
At the summary conviction trial of the accused, the Crown directed the entry of
a stay of proceedings under s. 579 of the Criminal Code. Before the stay was
entered, defence counsel advised the Crown that the accused intended to seek
costs against the Crown as a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of