Cie+Immobilière+Viger+Ltée+c.+L.+Giguère+inc.,

// Cie immobilière Viger Ltée // (dft/app) v. //Lauréat Giguère Inc.// (pff/resp) Facts __** : The town of Plessisville contracted with the Coopérative agricole de Granby (Coop) to locate dairies on the town’s land. As an incentive to get the Coop to do so, Plessisville undertook to level and improve the land at its own expense. -Viger is a subsidiary of the Coop and acquired the land. -Lauret Giguere (LG) is the company that Plessisville contracted with to level the land.
 * __

(1) Plessisville–Viger/Coop agreements for acquisition of land (to be improved/leveled at P’s expense) (2) Plessisville – Lauréat Giguère agreement to level the land (1) contravened Municipal Aid Prohibition Act (2) the by-law authorizing this K and the issuing of a loan for it were never approved by Municipal Commission nor submitted to municipal electors
 * 2 sets of agreements ** :
 * Both sets of contracts were void: **

- first instance dismissed the action; LG appealed only against Viger and Coop - CA upheld the action against Viger only and ordered it to pay the amount due to LG on the basis of **unjust** **enrichment**. Viger appeals.
 * LG was not paid in full, brought action against Plessisville, Coop and Viger **
 * __ Judicial History __** :


 * __ Issue __** : Was there unjust enrichment of Viger at LG’s expense? **__Held__**: YES à appeal dismissed


 * __ Reasoning __** : Criteria for unjust enrichment – **//all must be fulfilled//**

1. __enrichment of Viger?__ YES 2. __impoverishment of LG__? YES 3. __correlation between 1 and 2__? YES

4. __absence of justification__? YES, absence of justification - case law generally says that contract concluded between the enriched party (cf. Viger) and a third party (cf. Plessisville) can be justification for the resultant enrichment - So, superior court said the justification lies in the K which gave Viger title to the lots in their existing condition **//but//** **//this//** **//is//** **//not//** **//so// in this case**: **those Ks do not have as their object the cost of improvements, and they are not the cause of the impoverishment** - The real cause of the impoverishment is the **promise made by Plessisville to Viger** to level and improve the lots. **This promise is VOID, cannot be treated as the legal basis for the enrichment. Moreover, it is not contained in Viger’s contracts of acquisition.**

5. __absence of evasion of the law?__ YES, absence of evasion of the law - agreements (1) were null because contrary to public policy; agreement (2) only null because of failure to fulfill formalities. LG had nothing to do with the (1) agreements and as a third party should not have to bear the cost of an illegality of which it is innocent. “It cannot be claimed, as Viger contends, and as was upheld by the Superior Court, that Giguère is by its action trying to circumvent positive law, relying as he does on a claim based on a null K. This objection would have to be considered if Giguère were suing Plessisville: but **it was Viger that was enriched, and I do not see what provision of the law is circumvented if Giguère’s action is allowed against Viger.”**