Friends

I`m looking for a bit of research help. I`ve been considering the problem (admittedly one that perhaps exists in my own mind) of the tendency of the Supreme Court of Canada and other Canadian courts to play rather fast and loose with remedies in law and equity --- all in the name of “remedial fit.”

In my view, the court seems rather too eager to grab a remedial theory or device to suit “context,” and pays rather too little attention to traditional categories. I see this most obviously in unjust enrichment (for example, the cases approving restitution in the family law context), but am interested also in cases wherein the courts have taken tort law concepts and used them to justify damage remedies (I.e., punitive damages after Whiten) and vice versa.

I get the arguments against formalism but am also concerned about the increasing untidiness in the law.

I wonder, therefore, if others see this as well and, if so, whether they might be wiling to share cases or articles either criticising or approving the trend. As always, please do not hesitate to self-promote.

Thanks for your consideration.


Matt Harrington


Matthew P Harrington
Université de Montréal



Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10