Making Sense of Juristic Reasons: Unjust Enrichment after Garland v. Consumers' Gas
AbstractThis 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 of juristic 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.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.