|
Restitution (Specific) - Contract. Icetrading Inc. v. Trayanov
In Icetrading Inc. v. Trayanov (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, here brought against "orders arising from a motion for summary judgment in favour of the respondents".
Here the court considered contract as a restitution 'juristic reason':[32] Alternatively, if the motion judge was purporting to award damages to the respondents for unjust enrichment as a standalone cause of action, it was also an error for him to do so. There is no action for unjust enrichment where there is a juristic reason for the enrichment and corresponding deprivation: Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269, at para. 40. The existence of a contract between the parties is an established category of juristic reason that defeats a claim for unjust enrichment; where there is a contract that governs the dealings between the parties, “the analysis ends [and] the plaintiff’s claim must fail because the defendant will be justified in retaining the disputed benefit”: Moore v. Sweet, 2018 SCC 52, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 303, at para. 57. . Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock
In Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock (SCC, 2020) the Supreme Court of Canada applies current unjust enrichment law:[69] The plaintiffs also rely on the principled unjust enrichment framework (or what the Court of Appeal referred to as “unjust enrichment simpliciter”). This claim requires establishing that ALC was enriched, that the plaintiffs suffered a corresponding deprivation, and that the enrichment and corresponding deprivation occurred in the absence of any juristic reason therefor (Moore, at para. 37). The appellants argue that this claim is bound to fail because, even if ALC has been enriched at the plaintiff’s expense, there is a juristic reason for the exchange.
[70] The juristic reason element of the unjust enrichment analysis proceeds in two stages. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s enrichment cannot be justified by any of the established categories of juristic reason. If none of the established categories of juristic reason are present, the plaintiff has a prima facie case for unjust enrichment. At the second stage, the defendant can rebut the plaintiff’s prima facie case by showing that there is a residual reason to deny recovery (Moore, at paras. 57-58).
[71] Here, I do not have to go beyond the first stage of the analysis. The plaintiffs’ own pleadings allege that there was a contract between ALC and the plaintiffs under which the plaintiffs paid to play VLTs. A defendant that acquires a benefit pursuant to a valid contract is justified in retaining that benefit (Moore, at para. 57). Nothing in the pleadings, apart from perhaps the allegations of criminal conduct that I have determined are bound to fail, could serve to vitiate the alleged contract between the plaintiffs and ALC. It follows that I agree with the appellants that the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim has no reasonable chance of success.
|
