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.

Courts – Small Claims Court – Standard of review – Restitution – Unjust enrichment – Benefit – Incontrovertible benefit – Deprivation – Juristic reason – What is the proper standard of review from a decision by a Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court – Whether the facts as found by the Deputy Judge met the test of “incontrovertible benefit” for the purpose of applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment – If so, whether the applicants suffered a corresponding deprivation – If so, whether there was any juristic reason for the deprivation.

Due to the alleged mismanagement of a condominium, the unit holders retained legal counsel to commence an action against the property managers. Upon her retention, the lawyer sent a letter to the thirteen unit holders, including the Grovers. It invited the unit holders to sign and return a duplicate copy of the letter if they wished to have counsel act on their behalf. The Grovers did not sign and return the letter. Shortly after the litigation commenced, the managers gave up their role as managers. Subsequently, there was a dramatic increase in the value of the units, including the Grovers’ unit. The other twelve unit holders, including Mr. Hodgins and Ms. Dorans, paid one-thirteenth of the legal costs. The Grovers did not contribute to the legal costs but, in November 2006,they sold the unit they had purchased for $61,000 in 1994 for $84,000.

The Grovers denied any obligation to contribute their proportionate share of the legal fees ($7,550). Mr. Hodgins and Ms. Dorans commenced an action in Small Claims Court. When the matter was heard, Mr. Hodgins and Ms. Dorans were self-represented, but the Grovers had the benefit of legal counsel. The matter was heard by a practicing lawyer acting in the capacity of Deputy Judge. He granted the claim for a one-thirteenth share of the legal fees plus additional relief. The Superior Court of Justice dismissed an appeal and a cross-appeal. Having granted leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal granted the Grovers’ appeal but dismissed a cross-appeal.