Peel v. Ont. (1992), 144 N.R. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
The Regional Municipality of Peel (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (respondent)
(No. 21342)
The Regional Municipality of Peel (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (respondent)
(No. 22301)
Indexed As: Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Ontario
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,
Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,
McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
November 19, 1992.
Summary:
The Juvenile Delinquents Act, s. 20(2), gave the court power to order a municipality to contribute to the support of a juvenile delinquent. In 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada declared s. 20(2) to be ultra vires the federal Parliament (42 N.R. 572). The Regional Municipality of Peel commenced an action against the federal Crown to recover monies paid out pursuant to court orders under s. 20(2) between the years 1974 and 1982.
The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported [1987] 3 F.C. 103; 7 F.T.R. 213, allowed the municipality’s action. The federal Crown appealed.
The Federal Court of Appeal, Mahoney, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported [1989] 2 F.C. 562; 89 N.R. 308; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 618; 41 M.P.L.R. 113, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial Division and dismissed the municipality’s action.
The municipality also commenced a similar action against the Province of Ontario in the Ontario courts. The municipality claimed recoupment from the province on the basis of unjust enrichment.
The Ontario High Court of Justice, per Montgomery, J., in a decision reported (1988), 64 O.R.(2d) 298; 49 D.L.R.(4th) 759; 37 M.P.L.R. 314, allowed the municipality’s action and gave judgment for the municipality of $1,166,814.22 plus prejudgment interest. The Province of Ontario appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (1990), 42 O.A.C. 356; 1 O.R.(3d) 97; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 523; 2 M.P.L.R.(2d) 121, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of Montgomery, J., and dismissed the municipality’s action. The municipality appealed both the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals.
Civil Rights – Topic 8367
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of right – Remedies – General – Lamer, C.J.C., of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a concurring judgment, distinguished between a remedy in a restitution claim and a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter – See paragraphs 70 to 77.
Crown – Topic 2448
Liability of Crown arising out of enforcement of statutes – When available – Unconstitutional statutes – Section 20(2) of the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1970) gave the court power to order a municipality to contribute to the support of a juvenile delinquent – In 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada declared s. 20(2) to be ultra vires the federal Parliament – A municipality which paid monies pursuant to orders made under s. 20(2) from 1974 to 1982 claimed recoupment from the Province of Ontario and the federal Crown on the basis of unjust enrichment – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the municipality’s action where it failed to show that either level of government received a demonstrable financial benefit or was spared an inevitable expense (i.e., a failure to prove “incontrovertible benefits”) – See paragraphs 1 to 55.
Crown – Topic 2448
Liability of Crown arising out of enforcement of statutes – When available – Unconstitutional statutes – The Juvenile Delinquents Act, s. 20(2), empowered the court to order a municipality to contribute to the support of a juvenile delinquent – In 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada declared s. 20(2) to be ultra vires the federal Parliament – A municipality, which paid monies pursuant to s. 20(2) orders, claimed recoupment from the Province of Ontario and the federal Crown on the basis of unjust enrichment – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the municipality’s action – The court held that the municipality did not meet the legal tests for recovery under the unjust enrichment doctrine – Further, even assuming that recovery could be awarded on the basis of justice or fairness alone, the municipality’s claim failed – See paragraphs 56 to 65.
Mistake – Topic 1706
Recovery of money paid under mistake – Mistake of law – Money paid under invalid legislation – [See both
Crown – Topic 2448
].
Restitution – Topic 69
Unjust enrichment – Where money paid under invalid law – [See both
Crown – Topic 2448
].
Restitution – Topic 106
Unjust enrichment – Bars – Claim based on justice or fairness alone – The Supreme Court of Canada held that where the legal tests for recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment are not met, it is not open to the court to allow recovery on the basis of justice or fairness alone – See paragraphs 56, 57.
Restitution – Topic 121
Unjust enrichment – Remedies – General – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 8367
].
Restitution – Topic 154
Benefit acquired from the plaintiff – General principles – Requirement of benefit to the defendant – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed generally the concept of “benefit” as it relates to the doctrine of unjust enrichment – The court also discussed whether the law of restitution should be extended to “incontrovertible benefits” (i.e., unquestionable benefits which are demonstrably apparent and not subject to debate and conjecture), even in the absence of a defendant’s legal liability – See paragraphs 28 to 48.
Restitution – Topic 702
Benefit acquired from the plaintiff – Recovery of money – Money paid under compulsion – [See both
Crown – Topic 2448
].
Cases Noticed:
Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Metropolitan Corp. of Greater Winnipeg, [1971] S.C.R. 957, refd to. [para. 1].
Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Ontario (Attorney General) and Viking Houses, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1134; 29 N.R. 244, refd to. [para. 9].
Peel (Regional Municipality) v. MacKenzie and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 9; 42 N.R. 572, refd to. [paras. 10, 67, 70].
Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834; 34 N.R. 384; 19 R.F.L.(2d) 165; 117 D.L.R.(3d) 257; 8 E.T.R. 143, refd to. [paras. 21, 29-32, 39, 57].
Taylor v. Laird (1856), 25 L.J. Ex. 329, refd to. [para. 25].
Slade’s Case (1602), 4 Co. Rep. 92b; 76 E.R. 1074, refd to. [para. 28].
Brook’s Wharf and Bull Wharf Ltd. v. Goodman Brothers, [1937] 1 K.B. 534, refd to. [paras. 36, 41, 67].
Carleton (County) v. Ottawa (City), [1965] S.C.R. 663, dist. [paras. 41, 43, 67, 68].
Air Canada and Pacific Western Airlines v. British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1161; 95 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 65].
Reference re Adoption Act, [1938] S.C.R 398, refd to. [para. 68].
Adoption Act Reference – see Reference re Adoption Act.
R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,203; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 73].
Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 74].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 24(1) [paras. 72, 73].
Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [paras. 70, 72].
Family Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 152, sect. 16(1), sect. 16(2) [para. 13].
Family Law Act, S.O. 1986, c. 4, sect. 31(1) [para. 13].
Juvenile Delinquents Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. J-3, sect. 20(1), sect. 20(2) [para. 3 et seq.].
Peel (Regional Municipality) Act – see Regional Municipality of Peel Act.
Regional Municipality of Peel Act, S.O. 1973, c. 60, sect. 66 [para. 4].
Regional Municipality of Peel Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 440, sect. 70 [para. 4].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Fridman, G.H.L., and James G. McLeod, Restitution (1982), pp. 347 [para. 36]; 361 [para. 47].
Gautreau, J.R. Maurice, When Are Enrichments Unjust? (1989), 10 Advocates Quarterly 258, pp. 265 et seq. [para. 47]; 271, 272 [para. 43].
Goff, Robert, Lord Goff of Chieveley and Gareth Jones, The Law of Restitution (3rd Ed. 1986), pp. 12 [para. 30]; 16 [paras. 29, 34]; 21, 22 [para. 42]; 320, 324 [para. 37].
Maddaugh, Peter D. and John D. McCamus, The Law of Restitution (1990), pp. 5 [para. 28]; 717 [para. 47]; 740 [para. 59].
McInnes, Mitchell, Incontrovertible Benefits and the Canadian Law of Restitution (1990), 12 Advocates Quarterly 323, pp. 346, 347 [para. 45]; 352 [para. 23]; 362 [para. 45].
Restatement of the Law of Restitution: Quasi-Contracts and Constructive Trusts (1937), generally [para. 29].
Stevens, David, Restitution, Property and the Cause of Action in Unjust Enrichment: Getting By With Fewer Things (Part I) (1989), 39 U.T. L.J. 258, p. 271 [para. 61].
Wingfield, David R., The Prevention of Unjust Enrichment: Or How Shylock Gets His Comeuppance (1988), 13 Queen’s L.J. 126, p. 134 [para. 61].
Zwiegert, Konrad and Hein Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (2nd Ed. 1987), vol. 2, pp. 234, 235 [para. 47].
Counsel:
J. Edgar Sexton, Q.C., and David Stratas, for the appellant;
J.E. Thompson, Q.C., and Alan S. Davis, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada;
T.H. Wickett and Elaine Atkinson, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario.
Solicitors of Record:
Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada;
Deputy Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario.
This appeal was heard on June 2, 1992, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on November 19, 1992, including the following opinions:
McLachlin, J. (La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 66;
Lamer, C.J.C., concurring reasons – see paragraphs 67 to 78.
