Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
David J Mullan |
| Date: |
Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:38:36 -0500 |
| Re: |
Air Canada |
As
someone who has been lurking on this list for some considerable time, I
emerge with a considerable degree of trepidation. However, I would venture
to suggest that, even though Wilson J. might not have been totally clear
on the disappearance of the mistake of law/mistake of fact distinction in
Air Canada, she was quite decisive in Air
Canada, Canadian Pacific Airlines v. British Columbia [1989] 1 S.C.R.
1133 released the very same day. In that case, she joined with the LaForest
group in allowing recovery of moneys paid as a result of a mistaken interpretation
of legislation and in doing so expressly said that such recovery was rendered
possible by the Court's rejection of the law/fact distinction. That seems
to me to have settled the issue.
David Mullan,
Faculty of Law,
Queen's University,
Kingston, Ontario
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
