Making Sense of Juristic Reasons: Unjust Enrichment after Garland v. Consumers' Gas

  • Mitchell McInnes

Abstract

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 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.
How to Cite
McInnes, M. (1). Making Sense of Juristic Reasons: Unjust Enrichment after Garland v. Consumers’ Gas. Alberta Law Review, 42(2), 399. https://doi.org/10.29173/alr1295
Section
Articles