equitable principle of unjust enrichment. The concept of equitable assignment was introduced by the application judge in his
reasons for decision.
 None of this is contested by Ms. Moore on the appeal.
She argues, however, that there was no procedural unfairness
because ( i) the facts “are capable of” supporting an assignment
and ( ii) the agreement itself entailed an equitable assignment of
 I disagree.
 I shall return to these submissions below when dealing
with the substantive issues relating to equitable assignment.
Suffice it to say here that neither addresses the procedural
unfairness created by resting the decision, at least in significant
part, on that doctrine. Indeed, as I shall explain, the concerns
are reinforced by the factors raised by those submissions.
 Equitable assignment is not a straightforward concept to
understand or apply, procedurally or substantively, even when a
party is represented by counsel. It raises many questions. Here
are some, for example. Does the transaction in question constitute an equitable assignment of a “legal” right of action? Or is it
an equitable assignment of an “equitable” right of action? Are
there procedural implications arising out of the difference?
Would Ms. Moore, as the equitable assignee, be required to add
Mr. Moore’s estate as a co-applicant (something she did not do)?
What evidence is required to establish the assignor’s intention to
assign the property interest or right of action in question? What
exactly is it that was intended to be assigned — here, the policy
in its entirety or the right to the proceeds? Was the assignment
to be absolute or something else? Was there consideration? What
form of consideration is necessary?
 None of this was touched upon in Ms. Moore’s application
materials or in argument.
 Ms. Sweet was unrepresented at the hearing. She is disabled. Although the Public Guardian and Trustee was satisfied
that she was capable of representing herself at the hearing, she
requires her sister, Ms. McAdam, to act as her power of attorney
in respect of her personal property. Where is the appearance of
fairness when a party in such circumstances learns for the first
time, on receipt of the decision, that she has lost what she
thought was her entitlement to $250,000 needed to sustain her
for the rest of her life, on a basis that she had no way of knowing
would affect the outcome or that she had to meet? To pose the
question, in my opinion, is to answer it.
 This court has made it clear on a number of occasions
that lawsuits are to be decided within the boundaries of the