Making sense of juristic reasons: Unjust enrichment after Garland v. Consumers' Gas

• Author(s) / Creator(s)

  • McInnes, Mitchell

• This article considers the effect of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Garland v. Consumers' Gas. The author suggests that lacobucci J. 's judgment replaces the traditional common law approach, which relies on the presence of unjust factors, with a unique version of the traditional civil law approach, which relies on the absence ofjuristic reasons. That decision is criticized as being contrary to precedent and principle. The author then suggests how, with slight modifications, the new test of restitutionary liability may be made more workable and coherent. | Cet article examine les effets de la ricente ddcision de la Cour supreme du Canada dans 1 'affaire Garland c. Consumers' Gas. L 'auteur laisse entendre que le jugement de Jacobucci J. remplace la ddmarche traditionnelle de droit commun reposant sur la presence de facteurs injustes par une version unique de la dimarche traditionnelle de droit commun reposant sur I'absence de raisons judicielles. La decision a fait l'objet de critiques comme gtant contraire auxpricidents etprincipes. L 'auteur laisse ensuite entendre de quelle maniere, grdce 6 de legkres modiications, le nouveau test de la responsabilit par restitution peut s'av~rer plus raisonnable et plus coherent.

• Date created

  2004

• Subjects / Keywords

  • Canadian Law

• Type of Item

  Article (Published)

• DOI

  https://doi.org/10.7939/R3804Z03W

• License

  © 2004 Mitchell McInnes et al. This version of this article is open access and can be downloaded and shared. The original author(s) and source must be cited.