Sheehan v. Samuelson

Sheehan v. Samuelson

Applying the modern approach to statutory illegality and public policy (as articulated in Still and considered with Bedford and Bill C-36), the court held that a sex worker may enforce a contract for unpaid services or, alternatively, recover in unjust enrichment because permitting recovery prevents exploitation and does not frustrate the legislative purpose of the criminal prohibition; therefore the Defendant owes $1800 plus interest and costs.

Citation
2023 NSSM 27
Parties
Claimant: Brogan Leigh Sheehan; Defendant: Bradley Samuelson
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Illegal Contracts, Sex Work and Commercial Law, Unjust Enrichment, Public Policy Analysis, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Contract Law Criminal Law Equity and Restitution Tax Law Enforceability of Illegal Contracts Sex Work and Commercial Law Unjust Enrichment Public Policy Analysis +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brogan Leigh Sheehan

Claimant

Bradley Samuelson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a sex worker can enforce a contract for sexual services against a client
  2. 2 Whether a contract for sexual services is unenforceable as illegal under Criminal Code s.286.1
  3. 3 Whether restitution/unjust enrichment provides an alternative remedy where contract enforceability is barred

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the modern approach to statutory illegality and public policy (as articulated in Still and considered with Bedford and Bill C-36), the court held that a sex worker may enforce a contract for unpaid services or, alternatively, recover in unjust enrichment because permitting recovery prevents exploitation and does not frustrate the legislative purpose of the criminal prohibition; therefore the Defendant owes $1800 plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Damages awarded to Claimant: $1800.00
  • Interest awarded: $84.00 (4% for 14 months)