Chapitre+d'enrichissement+injustifié+Lluelles-Moore

Chapitre 20: L’enrichissement injustifié

- principle: no one should be enriched injustly/without cause to another’s detriment - this principle was not expressly in CCBC, so it was up to the courts to develop the action of unjust enrichment (//de in rem verso//), acknowledging that in addition to “quasi-contrats nommés”, the court could discover “quasi-contrats innommés” - French and Quebec courts tended to classify it as a special form of gestion d’affaires (which is a “contrat nommé) until it was finally recognized as an autonomous source of obligations (see //Boudier// in France; //Regent Taxi// and //Viger// in Quebec) - some attempted to ground the notion in article 1041 CCBC, arguing that this article allows for “quasi-contrats innommés” … but this wasn’t very convincing - now we have 1493-1496 CCQ, which expressly recognize unjust enrichment … //and// the general principle still inheres in certain other concepts in the Code as well (ex. 427, 1706 CCQ)
 * PRÉSENTATION GÉNÉRALE **

**1) un appauvrissement**: must exist, must be proven, must be quantifiable - you cannot just claim against someone who has been enriched; - could take various forms: contraction of one’s patrimony, or “manque à gagner” (often comes up in court on family patrimony issues, especially regarding services rendered without remuneration during cohabitation, and can be hard to quantify) **2) un enrichissement**: must exist, must be proven, must be quantifiable - enrichment must exist on the day of the demand and, like the impoverishment, will be evaluated (1495 CCQ) - could take various forms: augmentation of patrimony, or evasion of a loss - doctrine even recognizes purely moral or intellectual enrichment (but hard to quantify)
 * LES CONDITIONS DE L’ENRICHISSEMENT INJUSTIFIÉE **

- in the past, there had to be a //causal// connection, but now the CCQ calls it //correlative// (1493) - //direct// correlation: the object of impoverishment is automatically transferred into the enriched party’s patrimony - //indirect// correlation: the object of impoverishment transit’s through a third party’s patrimony
 * 3) une correspondence entre l’enrichissement et l’appauvrissement **

- //Boudier// did not get this far but it is a necessary condition because it //is// possible in a free market society to legitimately be enriched at another’s expense
 * 4) l’absence de justification** (1494 CCQ: non-exhaustive list of possible justifications)

-- law -- a civil obligation linking the parties (1494CCQ), i.e. a contract -- the voluntary execution of a natural obligation -- an act done with a liberal intention (ex. donation) -- an act done by the impoverished person in his own interest -- an act done by the impoverished person “at his own risk and peril” The impoverishment may be justified if the impoverished person has a relationship with a //third party// based on a legal obligation or contract
 * - l’enrichissement direct**: the disequilibrium **//is//** justified **//if//** it arises from:
 * In the past, the //sui generis// contract of communal living was considered the justification. Courts have increasingly recognized the possibility of EI in cases of //union de fait// or “quasi matrimonial” relations, usually where the impoverished party has sacrificed his/her career but has contributed more time/effort/energy in the home.
 * In //Sabourin c. Charlebois//, L’Heureux-Dubé in dissent rejected the view that the mere existence of a marriage contract is a justification. Now (since 1980) there is the possibility of prestation compensatoire which is like EI in the context of marriage.
 * - l’enrichissement indirect **

Example: In //Viger//, Giguère had a contract with Plessisville, who had a contract with Viger, so Giguère’s impoverishment and Viger’s correlative enrichment are justified.

But…

Example: A has a relationship with B, and B has a relationship with C A is impoverished and C is correlatively enriched à There //can// be a case for unjust enrichment

The relationship between B and C could be **legal**, **contractual**, or **inexistent** à If it is **legal or contractual**, the relationship will have to be examined to determine whether it justifies the enrichment. à If it is **inexistent**, there is EI because C’s **enrichment is not justified**

Note: there is a case for EI if the enrichment //or// the impoverishment is unjustified. So in the case of an **inexistent** relationship between B and C, we might argue that A’s //impoverishment// is justified by the risk that is presumed in any contractual relationship (//l’aventure contractuelle//). However, C’s //enrichment// is not justified.

- some controversy over this – even the SCC refused to pronounce on it directly (//Viger//) - this does seem to be a condition in 1494 CCQ
 * 5) L’absence d’autres recours **

- one could not seek an unjust enrichment claim if a claim in contract were possible instead (and note: the contract itself might justify enrichment/impoverishment). - one could not seek an unjust enrichment claim if one let the prescription period run out.
 * - l’enrichisement direct **

Note: “Lorsque le recours que détient ou détenait l’appauvri concerne un tiers, il ne fait pas obstacle au recours en enrichissement injustifié à l’égard de l’enrichi.”
 * - l’enrichissement indirect **

Example: In //Placements Triar Inc. c. Salama//, the owner of an immovable thought he was legally obliged to pay Hydro-Quebec what was owed by the previous owner, so he paid HQ. The Court of Appeal found that he had //not// been obliged to do so, therefore he could have had recourse against Hydro for //reception de l’indu//. **However, the Court of Appeal allowed the subsidiary claim in unjust enrichment even though recourse against a third party (Hydro Quebec) was possible.** Beauregard dissented: we shouldn’t allow an unjust enrichment action if the impoverished person refused or neglected to exercise a recourse.

.