Peel Regional Municipality of v Canada

The case of *Peel (Regional Municipality of) v Canada* [1992] 3 SCR 762 is a significant Canadian unjust enrichment law decision. The dispute arose under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which allowed courts to order municipalities to cover the costs of accommodating delinquent children in foster homes or charities. The Regional Municipality of Peel was directed to pay for such placements but contested these orders on grounds of ultra vires secondary legislation, successfully arguing that the directives exceeded legal authority.

Following their victory, Peel sought restitution from both provincial and federal governments, asserting they had assumed financial responsibilities on behalf of these entities. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this claim, ruling there was insufficient evidence to prove that the government had unequivocally benefited from Peel's payments. The court emphasized that an "incontrovertible benefit" is one clearly demonstrated without room for debate, distinguishing it from potential savings or possibilities.

In McLachlin J's leading judgment, she highlighted that restitution should only apply if the recipient would have inevitably borne the expense otherwise. Any uncertainty regarding the benefit undermines the obligation to reimburse, as the defendant might not have accepted the enrichment had they known. This reasoning was supported by other justices, including Lamer CJC.

The case underscores the necessity of clear and undeniable evidence of benefit for restitution to be granted, reinforcing the principle that legal liability must be discharged only when the recipient's gain is beyond dispute.