need to deal with the details of this argument because we agree
with the motion judge’s conclusion, in para. 71 of his reasons,
Even if the share purchase agreement was void, the plaintiff and Mr. Laurie
would have still have had a pecuniary and insurable interest in one another.
The entitlements under the insurance policy are unaffected.
(2) Constructive trust
 The appellants also argue that a genuine issue requiring
a trial exists as to whether the proceeds are impressed with
a constructive trust in their favour. The motion judge rejected
that argument, stating, at paras. 52-54:
To establish a constructive trust, the defendants must prove that the Mr.
Laurie was wrongfully deprived of his rights that Mr. Brown should not pos-
sess due to unjust enrichment, interference or due to a breach of a fiduciary
duty by the plaintiff.
I find that the there is no deprivation to the Laurie estate nor did Mr.
Brown possess trust monies due to unjust enrichment, interference or breach
of fiduciary duty. Mr. Brown received insurance funds as the parties jointly
anticipated from the outset.
Furthermore, there is no basis to find any wrongful conduct by the plaintiff
that could give rise to a juristic reason supporting a finding of unjust enrichment. On the totality of the evidence, I find that the plaintiff’s conduct does
not provide the basis for any trust claim by the defendants to the insurance
 We see no error in that conclusion. Once the motion judge
had found that Mr. Brown and Mr. Laurie never entered into
a buy-sell agreement, no basis existed on the evidence to challenge the payment of the Proceeds to Mr. Brown.
Second Issue: The Suitability of Granting Partial Summary
 The appellants further submit that the motion judge erred
in granting summary judgment on the proceeds claim but directing a trial for the promissory note claim. They contend that both
claims involve intertwined issues, rendering it inappropriate to
grant partial summary judgment.
 We disagree. Mr. Brown moved for summary judgment on
his entire claim. The motion judge was alive to the risks of granting summary judgment on only part of the claim. He canvassed
the factors discussed by this court in Butera v. Chown, Cairns
LLP (2017), 137 O.R. (3d) 561,  O.J. No. 5267, 2017 ONCA
783, at paras. 26 to 35. He concluded that the dangers of duplicative or inconsistent findings did not arise in the circumstances:
at para. 63. As a result, he granted partial summary judgment in