The court dismissed an appeal over restitution after an immigration-related scheme, holding illegality did not bar unjust enrichment relief where repayment would not frustrate policy.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal, holding the Supreme Court of Canada’s liability ruling was final and that s.5.1(4) of the DVA Act, read in its statutory and constitutional context including the Financial Administration Act constraints, operates as a complete bar to pre-1990 claims for interest or failure to invest; the motion judge erred in finding equitable fraud tolled limitations, erred in reinterpreting s.5.1(4) as a partial bar, and erred in procedural and valuation approaches (judicial notice and hindsight) used to award $4.6 billion, so the damages judgment was set asid…