What is the test for a juristic reason in a claim for wrongful enrichment?

The juristic reason analysis proceeds in two stages. The first stage requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s enrichment cannot be justified on the basis of any of the established categories, such as contract, disposition of law, a donative intent or other valid common law, equitable or statutory obligations: Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., 2004 SCC 25 at para. 44. If there is no juristic reason from one of these categories, then the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, and the analysis proceeds to the next stage.