In the alternative, the appellants submit that this money should be returned on the basis of unjust enrichment. A finding of unjust enrichment has three requirements: an enrichment, a corresponding deprivation and an absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment. The fact that a party’s actions have benefited another is not enough; it must also be “evident that the retention of the benefit would be ‘unjust’ in the circumstances of the case”: Pettkus v. Becker, 1980 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834, at p. 848, per Dickson J. (as he then was).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.