Law360 Canada ( August 7, 2025, 3:46 PM EDT) -- Appeal by appellants against motion judge’s decision. The appellants discussed the possibility of the respondents, the appellant’s son and daughter-in-law, acquiring their dairy farm after which they sold the dairy herd to the respondents. The parties had some discussion of subsequent steps of the acquisition, but the terms of the transfer remained hazy. In the years to follow, the parties had no further discussions about succession. The parties’ relationship deteriorated to the point of the appellants asking the respondents to leave the farm. After some time, the respondents brought an action for unjustified enrichment against the appellants. The motion judge dismissed the respondent’s claim for unjustified enrichment but raised the issue of proprietary estoppel on his own motion. He directed submissions on the issue and ultimately awarded damages on that basis. He also rejected the appellant’s claim to reduce amounts they were found to owe to the respondents under the doctrine of equitable set-off. The appellant’s appealed the motion judge’s decision and the respondent’s cross-appealed. The appeal and cross-appeal raised three issues: whether the trial judge erred in awarding the respondents damages based on proprietary estoppel; secondly, whether the trial judge erred in dismissing most of the respondent’s unjust enrichment claim; and finally, whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the appellant’s claim for equitable set-off....