Carleton (County of) v. Ottawa (City)

Carleton (County of) v. Ottawa (City)

Annexation and the annexation agreement transferred responsibility for social service obligations to the City of Ottawa; an administrative oversight omitting an individual case from a list does not relieve the city of that responsibility; equity and restitution principles require the city to repay the county for payments made on behalf of the city's residents where retention of the benefit would be unconscionable.

Citation
[1965] SCR 663
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Corporation of the County of Carleton; Defendant/respondent: Corporation of the City of Ottawa
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 May 1965
Procedural Posture
Appeal (supreme Court of Canada); Municipal Law / Final Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment below varied in favour of appellant County of Carleton.
Legal Topics
Annexation, Responsibility for Welfare Cases, Homes for the Aged Act 1947, Unjust Enrichment, Inter Municipal Agreements
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Restitution (unjust Enrichment) Equity Annexation Responsibility for Welfare Cases Homes for the Aged Act 1947 Unjust Enrichment Inter Municipal Agreements

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corporation of the County of Carleton

Plaintiff/appellant

Corporation of the City of Ottawa

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (supreme Court of Canada); Municipal Law / Final Appeal From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether annexation and the inter-municipal agreement transferred responsibility for an indigent resident to the annexing city
  2. 2 Whether an inadvertent omission of an individual case from a list of welfare cases defeats the city's assumed obligations
  3. 3 Whether restitution/unjust enrichment permits recovery by the county for payments made on behalf of the indigent after annexation

Ratio Decidendi

Annexation and the annexation agreement transferred responsibility for social service obligations to the City of Ottawa; an administrative oversight omitting an individual case from a list does not relieve the city of that responsibility; equity and restitution principles require the city to repay the county for payments made on behalf of the city's residents where retention of the benefit would be unconscionable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment below varied in favour of appellant County of Carleton.

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellant County of Carleton in the amount of $9,833.01 for sums expended to October 31, 1962.
  • Appellant entitled to recover cost of maintaining Norah Baker from November 1, 1962; if parties cannot agree the amount to be determined by reference to the Local Master at Ottawa.