Leapfrogging, Risk and Unjust Enrichment in Canada after Moore v. Sweet

Harrington, Matthew P.

Download This Paper

Open PDF in Browser

Add Paper to My Library

Leapfrogging, Risk and Unjust Enrichment in Canada after Moore v. Sweet

(2020) 96 (2d Ser) Supreme Court Law Review 191

24 Pages Posted: 15 May 2020

See all articles by Matthew P. Harrington

Matthew P. Harrington

Université de Montréal

Date Written: April 20, 2020

Abstract

This article examines the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to unjust enrichment in Moore v Sweet, and considers its implications for the future of restitution in Canada. It begins by providing a brief outline of the facts of the case. Thereafter, it explores the Court’s approach to the problem of deprivation and enrichment in cases where there is an indirect transfer of a beneﬁt from the claimant to the defendant. It then discusses the Court’s approach to juristic reason, noting in particular the way in which the Court appears to have ﬁnally abandoned any reliance on unjust factors. It concludes with a discussion of the problem of leapfrogging and risk, and asserts that the Court’s approach in Moore is unsatisfactory to the extent that it allows unjust enrichment to be used as an end run around an established contractual and statutory regime.

Keywords: unjust enrichment, restitution, leapfrogging, juristic reason

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Harrington, Matthew P., Leapfrogging, Risk and Unjust Enrichment in Canada after Moore v. Sweet (April 20, 2020). (2020) 96 (2d Ser) Supreme Court Law Review 191, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3581242