The equitable action in unjust enrichment: Ambiguity and error

• Author(s) / Creator(s)

  • McInnes, Mitchell

• The article discusses the two issues including ambiguity and error in the statement regarding equitable remedy that will necessarily involve discretion and questions of fairness in the judgment held in the Supreme Court case Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co. in Canada. It explains why unjust ought is not to be considered equitable in the sense of being, attributable to the Chancellor's jurisdiction, based on broad discretion or confined to a subsidiary gap-filling role. It is concluded that the issue concerning the Canadian law of unjust enrichment has no jurisdiction for resolving restitutionary claims in terms of broad discretion.

• Date created

  2007

• Subjects / Keywords

  • Equitable Remedies (Law)
  • Canada
  • Restitution
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Judgments (Law)
  • Administrative Discretion (Law)
  • Unjust Enrichment
  • Commercial Law

• Type of Item

  Article (Published)

• DOI

  https://doi.org/10.7939/R3QV3CJ2T

• License

  © 2007 Canadian Business Law Journal. This article has been reproduced with the permission of the CBLJ.