Hawrelak v. City of Edmonton

Hawrelak v. City of Edmonton

Majority allowed the appeal and dismissed the city’s claim: no statutory basis and the facts did not bring the case within the fiduciary/accountability authorities; the city failed to prove unjust enrichment or the causal link between the appellant’s mayoral conduct and the sale profit; Council acted with knowledge and the replotting policy pre-existed the appellant’s mayoralty, so disgorgement was not justified.

Citation
[1976] 1 SCR 387
Parties
Appellant/defendant: William Hawrelak; Respondent/plaintiff: City of Edmonton
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 1975
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed; judgments below reversed.
Legal Topics
Accountability for Profits, Municipal Redevelopment/replotting, Disqualification of Municipal Officer, Causation of Enrichment, Remedies Against Public Officers
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Fiduciary Duty Unjust Enrichment Conflict of Interest Public Office Law Accountability for Profits Municipal Redevelopment/replotting Disqualification of Municipal Officer +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Hawrelak

Appellant/defendant

City of Edmonton

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a mayor must account for profits from sale of private company shares because of municipal replotting
  2. 2 Whether the fiduciary/accountability rules (Regal/Hastings line) apply to a municipal mayor in these facts
  3. 3 Whether the city proved unjust enrichment or causal link between the mayor’s conduct and his profit

Ratio Decidendi

Majority allowed the appeal and dismissed the city’s claim: no statutory basis and the facts did not bring the case within the fiduciary/accountability authorities; the city failed to prove unjust enrichment or the causal link between the appellant’s mayoral conduct and the sale profit; Council acted with knowledge and the replotting policy pre-existed the appellant’s mayoralty, so disgorgement was not justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed; judgments below reversed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and action dismissed
  • Costs awarded to appellant