Good summary for that case please

Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398

10:444 III '3' [3' Cd'nLll Find in document Introduction [1] The plaintiff claims for a declaration that the defendant holds certain property described as 4396 Beach Avenue, Peachland, British Columbia, legally described as Parcel Identifier No. 006-264-972, Lot B, District Lot 220, Osoyoos Division, Yale District, Plan 23676 (\"Peachland property\" or \"Peachland") in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff. In the alternative, the plaintiff seeks a declaration of unjust enrichment or that the defendant is a constructive trustee. In further alternative, the plaintiff seeks damages for misrepresentation and breach of contract. The plaintiff also seeks an accounting, punitive damages and costs. The defendant denies the trust and claims, in the alternative, that the plaintiff was party to a fraudulent transaction designed to defraud mortgage lenders. The defendant has counterclaimed for amounts owed from rental of Peachland to the plaintiff since June 2004. [2] The trial of this action was originally set for ten days. In the end, it took 48 days to complete. The trial was unduly lengthened because it became apparent quite quickly that there were substantially different versions of events from both sides of the action and counsel intensely investigated to ascertain the truth. The extent of the conflict in evidence was so large as to astonish even this experienced judge. As a result, fairness required that I proceed slowly through all of the evidence to determine who was telling the truth. Preliminary Issue - Parol Evidence [3] At the outset of trial, the defendant objected V a V to the introduction of parol evidence by the to establish the existence of a trust that the defendant said was contrary to the express terms of the written contracmmopertv (the