Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Unjust enrichment - Contracts - Remedies - Payday lenders claiming to have reasonable expectation that s. 347 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, would not be enforced against their industry - Whether s. 347.1 of the Criminal Code reflects a shift in public policy that should favour the Applicants - How are the portions of the unjust enrichment test as articulated in Garland v. Consumers Gas Co., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629, related to “reasonable expectation of the parties” and “public policy considerations” to be applied by the Courts? - How are s. 347 of the Criminal Code and the law of unjust enrichment to be applied to the circumstances facing the payday loan industry?

The Applicants were the principals, head office companies and storefront operations involved in a payday loan business giving short-term loans of small amounts to a large number of people. The loan agreements required the borrowers to pay charges calculated at 25 percent of the principal amount of the loan. The Respondent borrowers became the representative plaintiffs for a certified class action to recover all of the amounts paid by borrowers to the Applicants in British Columbia from December 1998 to April 2005, exceeding what is permitted under s. 347 of the Criminal Code. They applied for a determination of various common issues by way of summary trial including, inter alia, whether: charges under the loan agreements constituted interest; the interest charged was a criminal rate of interest; the Applicants were unjustly enriched; Applicants contravened the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2 (“BPCPA”), and the Trade Practice Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 457 (“TPA”); and Applicants were liable for the tort of conspiracy.