Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Forgive me for jumping in late here, but my understanding is that the new forms of provincial limitations (particularly, but not exclusively those enacted after the 1992 Supreme Court of Canada judgment in M(K) v. M(H)) catch all equitable claims, including those for breach of fiduciary duty. Some current limitation statutes, such as Alberta's and Ontario's, make specific allowances/exceptions for certain types of claims by Aboriginal peoples against the Crown, including breaches of fiduciary duty (note section 2(3)(c) and (f) of the current Ontario Act and s. 13 of the Alberta Act), but other limitation statutes that expressly indicate their application to all common law and equitable causes of action will catch breach of fiduciary duty claims. The scenario contemplated in M(K) is unique because the then-current Ontario Act did not expressly apply to all equitable causes of action. Whether this situation OUGHT to be as it is is an entirely different matter. I consider various elements of these matters in my book Fiduciary Law (Thomson/Carswell, 2005) at pp.619-31 if anyone would like to follow up on this discussion further.

Regards to all,

Len

Dr. Leonard I. Rotman
Professor
Faculty of Law, University of Windsor
Phone: (519) 253-3000, ext. 2947
Fax: (519) 973-7064

Jason Neyers
Sent by: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues 19/11/2007 10:42 AM
Please respond to Jason Neyers
Subject Re: [RDG] RDG -- cases of restitution for historic wrongs

The Chippewas of Sarnia litigation might also fit the bill.