From: Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>
Date: Thursday, 24 September 2026 at 19:10
To: 'Paul Daly' <paul.daly@uottawa.ca>; 'Samuel Beswick' <sbeswick@sjd.law.harvard.edu>; Obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: RE: Unjust enrichment at the SCC (again)

[External Email] This email originated outside of Trinity College Dublin. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Thanks Paul.

 

With English eyes and a vague understanding of how other common law systems deal with these situations, one can somewhat see it might be similar to the many farm "proprietary estoppel" (sic) cases we have here: party A agrees to work for party B for free or reduced compensation for a long period in expectation of receiving a substantial reward later in life.

 

In cases not involving contract, then the standard position would be that if the agreed counter-performance (i.e. the expected eventual reward) fails, then A ought to get back the market value of the work put in at that stage. But if the parties have a contract, then the contract will be important in deciding what the condition of the performance was, and the consequences of it failing. As I argued in a recent English CA case, that isn't "exclusion", that is a prior stage of the analysis of the cause of action.

 

I don't think the fact that the parties have a contract automatically "excludes" a claim in restitution, any more than a contract excludes it the standard commercial case involving a failure of counterperformance. Exclusion of an existing right would normally have to be spelled out specifically, whether expressly or by necessary implication.

 

Of course, none of the above is how the English courts actually deal with these farm cases, and obviously English law on failure of condition is no sensible read across to Quebec civil law!

 

Best,

 

Matthew

 

Matthew Hoyle

Barrister

One Essex Court

 

This message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe you have received it in error please delete it immediately and inform the sender.

 

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board.

 

 

I believe -- my grasp of French is better than my grasp of unjust enrichment -- the theory of the case was that the lower earning spouse and the higher earning spouse undertook a common project to support the latter's career, the payoff for which would be a golden retirement for the former -- this never came because the relationship ended, and the lower earning spouse sought a 50% share of the value of the common project. See par 24 of the QCCA decision. No comment from me on how tenable this theory is -- don't shoot the translator!

 

An interesting nugget is that the first-instance judge (Rigaud J) who found in favour of the appellant was a law professor at the University of Montreal before her appointment to the bench

 

Paul 

 

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.