Hucul v. GN Ventures Ltd.
rendered” . . . ; “the value of his services to the defendants” . . . Recently, in
Aerovac Systems Ltd. v. Darwon Construction (Western) Ltd., 2010 BCSC
654, Savage J. came to this conclusion at para. 49:
In my view these authorities support the view that the court
has a broad discretion in determining the appropriate method to apply
in calculating a quantum meruit claim. Estimates, reasonable costs
and expenses, quoted rates, abortive negotiations on price, and
expert opinions are all methods which a court can utilize in
determining a fair value for the services rendered. This is not a closed
list. The appropriate method or methods to use in any individual case
will depend on the evidence before the court.
I respectfully agree. As I understand the authorities cited to this Court,
in the light of Kerr, the appropriate measure for restitutionary quantum meruit
is to be selected to meet the circumstances of the particular case. Important
factors will include but not be limited to, the course of dealings between the
parties, any estimates obtained, the costs incurred, the scope of work, the
actual work done, the market value of the services provided.
 In some cases, it is the value of the plaintiff’s contribution to the defendant
which is paramount, as was stated by Justice Huddart in Bond Development Corp.
v. Esquimalt (Township), 2006 BCCA 248 [Bond]:
A claim for quantum meruit is for reasonable remuneration for the
services provided, “the amount it deserves” or “what the job is worth” (Ketza
Construction Corp. v. Mickey, 2000 YTCA 4 at para. 13). Thus, the trial judge
was correct when he noted at para. 102 that, “[q]uantum meruit involves
consideration of the amount and value of the services rendered, not potential
profit.” The amount to which a plaintiff is entitled on the basis of unjust
enrichment is the value of the benefit obtained by the defendant, and not the
loss to the plaintiff assessed as if the contract were fulfilled. If Bond is entitled
to restitution it is to be for the value of benefit it conferred upon Esquimalt;
that is, the market value of the development services it provided. That value
must be determined from the evidence.
 In other cases, the detriment to the plaintiff and the value of his or her
services are primary considerations. In Malik (Estate of) v. State Petroleum
Corporation, 2009 BCCA 505 [Malik], a claim for unjust enrichment was considered
in the context of a claim for a finder’s fee:
On an unjust enrichment analysis, the issue of whether the finder has
earned the fee logically falls under the first consideration, the benefit accruing
to the recipient of the services. It is here the “material contribution” test is
applied. If the finder can show the service was an effective cause of the
ultimate transaction, the test has been met.