beneficiary and executed a change in beneficiary form designating
Ms. Sweet as the irrevocable beneficiary under the policy. The
change of beneficiary was properly recorded with the insurer.
 The application judge ruled in favour of Ms. Moore. He
held that the policy proceeds of $250,000 plus interest were held
in trust and that Ms. Moore was entitled to recover them on the
basis of unjust enrichment. Ms. Sweet appeals.
 For the reasons that follow, I would allow the appeal.
 Ms. Moore and Mr. Moore were married in 1979. They
have three children together, born in 1983, 1984 and 1988.
Although they were minors at the time the oral agreement was
made, all were adults by the time of Mr. Moore’s death in 2013.
 In October 1985, Mr. Moore applied for and obtained a policy of insurance on his life in the principal amount of $250,000
from a predecessor of RBC Life Insurance Company. He was
named as the owner of the policy. Ms. Moore was named as a
beneficiary, but not as an irrevocable beneficiary. Annual premiums of $507.50 were paid from the Moores’ joint account prior
to their separation. Thereafter, the premiums were paid by
Ms. Moore alone. The policy remained in effect until Mr. Moore’s
death on June 20, 2013. His estate has no significant assets.
 According to Ms. Moore, “[t]he Policy was entered into due
to the Deceased’s financial irresponsibility and the understanding the Deceased and [she] shared, which was that the Policy
was required in order to support [their] Children in the event of
the Deceased’s passing”.
 The Moores separated in December 1999. Ms. Moore says
that shortly thereafter the deceased told her and the children
“that he would ensure we were taken care of”. Without stating
whether the agreement occurred at the time the policy was
taken out, or at the time of separation, or on some other occa-
sion, she deposed that
It was expressly agreed between the Deceased and I that in paying for
the Policy premiums, I would be entitled to receive the Policy benefits upon
 On the basis of this evidence, the application judge found
that there was an oral agreement between the Moores “made in
2000 to the effect that [Ms. Moore] would pay the premiums and
be entitled to the proceeds of the Policy on [Mr. Moore’s] death”.
This finding is not contested on appeal.
 Mr. Moore and Ms. Sweet met when they were both
attending the Donwood Institute, an addiction treatment centre.