Leapfrogging, Risk and Unjust Enrichment in Canada after Moore v. Sweet

Abstract

This article examines the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to unjust enrichment in Moore v Sweet, and considers its implications for the future of restitution in Canada. It begins by providing a brief outline of the facts of the case. Thereafter, it explores the Court’s approach to the problem of deprivation and enrichment in cases where there is an indirect transfer of a benefit from the claimant to the defendant. It then discusses the Court’s approach to juristic reason, noting in particular the way in which the Court appears to have finally abandoned any reliance on unjust factors. It concludes with a discussion of the problem of leapfrogging and risk, and asserts that the Court’s approach in Moore is unsatisfactory to the extent that it allows unjust enrichment to be used as an end run around an established contractual and statutory regime.

Keywords: unjust enrichment, restitution, leapfrogging, juristic reason