Cie immobilière Viger v. Giguère inc., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 67

Cie immobilière Viger v. Giguère inc., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 67.

• 
  two agreement b/w the town of Plessisiville (‘Plessisville’) and the appellant Viger: a notarial deed (DP-4) on Aug. 10, 1966 AND P-15 agreement on Oct. 15, 1966. Both of the agreements included that it was at Plessisville’s “sole expense” to improve the lands sold.
  
• 
  A k b/w Plessisville and the respondent Giguère on Aug. 25, 1966, in which Plessisville awarded Giguère the k of levelling.
  
• 
  Later it was found that the agreements DP-4 and P-15 were null b/c, in undertaking to pay the cost of improving the lots, Plessisville was granting a benefit to Viger, thereby contravening the Municipal Aid Prohibition Act.
  
• 
  The levelling k b/w Plessisville and Giguère was found also null b/c it was never approved by the Municipal Commission.
  
• 
  Plessisville had already paid Giguère part of money for the work done, a sum of $75,000, but it was not enough to cover the whole cost of work. Therefore, Giguère claimed the cost of work: the price of the work, the profit and the interest.
  
• 
  The trial judge dismissed Giguère‘s action, while the court of Appeal allowed Giguère’s appeal and ordered Viger to pay Giguère the rest of the cost of work. Viger appealed the SCC.
  

• 
  the theory of unjustified enrichment is now undeniably incorporated into the civil law. French adopted the theory at the end of 19^th century. In Quebec, both before and after promulgation of the Civil Code, case law implicitly but effectively applied the theory. The theory is no longer open to debate; discussion relates only to its theoretical basis and to the conditions of application.
  
• 
  The Civil Code does not contain the whole of civil law. It is based on principles that are not all expressed there, which it is up to case law and doctrine to develop.
  
• 
  The court then analyzed 6 conditions for the application of unjust enrichment in this case.
  
• 
  1. An enrichment: Viger was clearly enriched by the value of the work necessary to improve the lot.
  
• 
  2. An impoverishment: Giguère’s impoverishment is material and positive – a reduction of its patrimony.
  
• 
  3. A correlation b/w the enrichment and the impoverishment: The theory of unjustified enrichment does not require that the enrichment pass directly from the property of the impoverishment to that of the enriched party. The impoverished party looks to the one who profited from its impoverishment. It is then for the enriched party to find a legal justification for its enrichment.  indirect correlation and the shift of burden of proof.
  
• 
  4. The absence of justification: the divergence of opinion b/w the trial judge and the court of appeal.
  

-“it was Viger’s and Plessisville’s intention that the aid, that is the levelling of the lots without cost, to the benefit of Viger, was to be guaranteed by the agreements b/w these two parties rather than by Viger’s ks of acquisition, which were only a formal stage in implementing the plan to set up the factory and the ks concluded b/w Plessisville and Viger.”

-Viger’s ks to purchase the lots thus have an object other than the cost of improvement; further, the cause of Viger’s enrichment and Giguère’s impoverishment is not to be found in these ks – except by separating them artificially from the project as a whole.

-the k concluded b/w Giguère and Plessisville is not intrinsically null, it was null b/c it did not meet the requirement of the formality.

-the ks b/w Viger and Plessisville are null b/c the law states that municipal subsidies are contrary to the public policy.

-in fact, Viger’s enrichment and Giguère’s impoverishment have a common origin in the agreement made b/w Plessisville and Viger, and this origin, far from constituting a justification, is clearly unlawful with respect to Viger.

• 
  5. The absence of evasion of the law:
  
• 
  6. The absence of any other remedy: the court here assumed a situation, in which Giguère may claim based on other cause in stead of unjust enrichment.
  

Loungnarath v. Centre hospitalier des Laurentides, [1996] R.J.Q. 2498 (C.A.) (edited).

• 
  An enrichment, an impoverishment and the correlation b/w them:
  

• 
  Absence of justification: there was the justification by the law – under which the hospital had the legal right not to pay the services that the applt. supplied.
  
• 
  Absence of any other remedy: L’action de in rem verso n’a qu’un caractère subsidiaire, elle ne peut être admise qu’en l’absence de tout autre recours; elle doit être refusée losque l’appauvri disposait d’un autre recours, en l’occurrence le recours à l’arbitrage, qu’il a laissé prescrire.
  

• 
  the majority in this case did not find the hospital’s enrichment, b/c the hospital was identical no matter the applt. got payment or not.
  
• 
  Here the legislation could also become a source of justification.