Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Jason Neyers |
| Date: |
Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:03:22 -0400 |
| Re: |
UE in Canada |
Dear Colleagues:
I found an interesting UE case in the recent Ontario
Reports which might be of interest to some on the RDG.
The facts (from the headnote) of Conrad
v. Feldbar Construction Ltd. (2004) 70 OR (3d) 298 are as follows.
F and C were co-tenants of a piece of property that was adjacent to the
property of M. All three owners approached the local government for permission
to sub-divide the land. The permission was given with the condition that
the parties had to agree to build a major road between the two sets of
property. C refused to sign the formal agreement to pay for the road,
so F and M built the road at their own expense. After the tenancy of F
& C was partitioned and the lands of C sold to a third party, M sued C
for C's share of the road costs on the basis of UE.
The trial judge allowed the claim since C had been enriched,
M had been deprived and M had not given the value of the road to C as
a gift and C had "freely accepted" the benefit.
It seems that Canadian courts still have some way to
go in fleshing out the concept of juristic reason.
--
Jason Neyers
January Term Director
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
