Garland v. Consumers' Gas Company Limited

Garland v. Consumers' Gas Company Limited

Majority held courts have jurisdiction to entertain a restitution claim against a utility despite Board rate orders, and OEBA s.25 (former s.18) and s.15 Criminal Code and regulated industries arguments do not provide complete defences, but the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim fails on its merits (the enrichment/absence of juristic reason elements cannot be established as fair and just to require disgorgement), so the action is dismissed; the costs award to Consumers' Gas is set aside and parties ordered to bear their own costs here and below.

Citation
C34248
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Gordon Garland; Co Plaintiff/appellant: Michael McGowan; Funder: The Law Foundation of Ontario; Defendant/respondent: The Consumers' Gas Company Limited; Intervener: Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Class Proceeding / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Costs Order (motions Judge Decisions of April 19 and May 15, 2000)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; underlying action dismissed on merits (unjust enrichment claim fails); costs award to Consumers' Gas set aside
Legal Topics
Section 347 Criminal Code, Late Payment Penalties, Unjust Enrichment, Jurisdiction of Regulatory Tribunals Vs Courts, Ontario Energy Board Act S.25 (former S.18), Change of Position Defence, Class Actions, Costs
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Regulatory Law Energy Law Civil Procedure Restitution Administrative Law Section 347 Criminal Code Late Payment Penalties +6 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Garland

Plaintiff/appellant

Michael McGowan

Co Plaintiff/appellant

The Law Foundation of Ontario

Funder

The Consumers' Gas Company Limited

Defendant/respondent

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Class Proceeding / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Costs Order (motions Judge Decisions of April 19 and May 15, 2000)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Do courts have jurisdiction to entertain the claim or does the Ontario Energy Board have exclusive jurisdiction?
  2. 2 Does s.25 of the Ontario Energy Board Act bar the class action?
  3. 3 Does s.15 of the Criminal Code afford a defence?

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held courts have jurisdiction to entertain a restitution claim against a utility despite Board rate orders, and OEBA s.25 (former s.18) and s.15 Criminal Code and regulated industries arguments do not provide complete defences, but the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim fails on its merits (the enrichment/absence of juristic reason elements cannot be established as fair and just to require disgorgement), so the action is dismissed; the costs award to Consumers' Gas is set aside and parties ordered to bear their own costs here and below.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; underlying action dismissed on merits (unjust enrichment claim fails); costs award to Consumers' Gas set aside

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • Preservation order refused