Bowen v. City of Montreal

Bowen v. City of Montreal

The unjust enrichment claim was barred by the six‑month municipal prescription because any enrichment flowed from the expropriation and resale; however, conclusions seeking annulment of the expropriation (subject to the longer prescription) could not be adjudicated without impleading the purchaser, so the appeal is allowed solely to permit the appellant to implead the purchaser and pursue the nullity claim.

Citation
[1979] 1 SCR 511
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Murray Bowen; Respondent/defendant: City of Montreal
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 December 1978
Procedural Posture
Expropriation Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed for the limited purpose of permitting appellant to implead the purchaser of the expropriated property to pursue conclusions seeking annulment of the expropriation; unjust enrichment/damages claim dismissed as prescribed.
Legal Topics
Unjust Enrichment, Prescription (statute of Limitations), Nullity/annulment of Municipal Proceedings, Impleading Third Party, Resale of Expropriated Property, Abuse of Municipal Power
Source Language
English
Expropriation Municipal Law Civil Procedure Appeal Unjust Enrichment Prescription (statute of Limitations) Nullity/annulment of Municipal Proceedings Impleading Third Party +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murray Bowen

Appellant/plaintiff

City of Montreal

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Expropriation Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim framed in unjust enrichment is exempt from the six‑month prescription in the Charter of the City of Montreal
  2. 2 Whether enrichment resulting from expropriation and resale is unjust enrichment
  3. 3 Whether an action in nullity to annul expropriation proceedings is subject to the shorter six‑month prescription or the thirty‑year prescription

Ratio Decidendi

The unjust enrichment claim was barred by the six‑month municipal prescription because any enrichment flowed from the expropriation and resale; however, conclusions seeking annulment of the expropriation (subject to the longer prescription) could not be adjudicated without impleading the purchaser, so the appeal is allowed solely to permit the appellant to implead the purchaser and pursue the nullity claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed for the limited purpose of permitting appellant to implead the purchaser of the expropriated property to pursue conclusions seeking annulment of the expropriation; unjust enrichment/damages claim dismissed as prescribed.

Orders

  • Appellant is authorized to, within 60 days, take proper proceedings to implead the purchaser of the expropriated property to obtain judgment on his claim that all expropriation proceedings be declared void.
  • If appellant acts on this authorization, costs in the Superior Court shall be dealt with by the judge hearing the case without being bound by prior costs orders.