Background Facts: Johnston, a chartered accountant, and Goodwin, a visual effects producer, began a romantic relationship in June 2013. In 2016, Goodwin won $12 million. They moved into a home purchased by Goodwin in Vancouver, with the title solely in his name. Due to the significant winnings, both parties signed a cohabitation agreement on August 16, 2017, after receiving independent legal advice. This agreement declared their financial independence, with Goodwin's winnings classified as his separate property.

Legal Agreements: Johnston claimed they had an oral agreement where he would receive 50% of the growth from investments he managed for Goodwin, made in June 2017. He also alleged a subsequent agreement made in August or September 2020, which allowed him to retain 100% of the growth on his half of the joint investments.

Legal Arguments: Johnston sought specific performance of the oral agreements or damages for breach of contract, or alternatively, reasonable compensation for his services. Goodwin applied for summary judgment, arguing that the oral agreements contradicted the written cohabitation agreement, which outlined their financially independent relationship.

Court's Findings: The court denied Goodwin’s application for summary judgment, determining that the oral fee agreement was potentially separate from the cohabitation agreement and required further examination at trial. The court found genuine issues regarding the enforceability of the oral agreements and whether they conflicted with the written cohabitation agreement.

Costs: The court awarded costs of the application to Tanner Johnston, to be determined in the cause.