Gidney v. Feuerstein et al., (1995) 101 Man.R.(2d) 197 (QB)

• Judge: Beard, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: April 07, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1995), 101 Man.R.(2d) 197 (QB)

Gidney v. Feuerstein (1995), 101 Man.R.(2d) 197 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

John Gidney (plaintiff) v. Rene Joseph William Shank, Michael Devaney, William Hilderman, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan, and Dennis Feuerstein (defendants)

(File No. 44/84 (84-08-0044))

Indexed As: Gidney v. Feuerstein et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Flin Flon Centre

Beard, J.

April 7, 1995.

Summary:

Gidney purchased a canoe for $100 which he spent many hours and over $800 repair­ing. He subsequently learned that the canoe was stolen. It was returned to Feuerstein, the rightful owner. Gidney sought restitution for services from Feuerstein et al.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the claim.

Restitution - Topic 61

Unjust enrichment - General - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench traced the development of the law of restitution, particularly, unjust enrichment - See para­graphs 10 to 42.

Restitution - Topic 62

Unjust enrichment - What constitutes - Gidney purchased a canoe which he spent many hours and over $800 repairing - He subsequently learned that the canoe was stolen - It was returned to Feuerstein, the rightful owner - Gidney sought restitution for services from Feuerstein - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application on the basis of unjust en­richment (i.e., (a) Feuerstein was enriched by the repairs and there was no evidence that the repairs were of "no value" to him, (b) there was a corresponding deprivation to Gidney, (c) there was an absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment, and (d) there would be an element of injustice to allow Feuerstein to retain the benefit).

Restitution - Topic 235

Benefit acquired from the plaintiff - Mis­take - Benefit conferred by mistake - Mis­take of fact - Gidney purchased a canoe which he spent many hours and over $800 repairing - He subsequently learned that the canoe was stolen - It was returned to Feuerstein, the rightful owner - Gidney sought restitution for services from Feuer­stein - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench stated that this was a clear case of mistake of fact by Gidney - He wrongful­ly believed that he was the owner of the canoe when he made the repairs - More­over, Feuerstein did not request the repairs, nor did he have knowledge that they were being made - In the past, courts have been reluctant to allow recovery for services provided in these circumstances - None­theless, after reviewing the law of unjust enrichment, the court allowed the applica­tion.

Restitution - Topic 235

Benefit acquired from the plaintiff - Mis­take - Benefit conferred by mistake - Mistake of fact - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench discussed when the court will allow recovery to a plaintiff for ser­vices provided under a mistake of fact where the defendant has neither requested nor acquiesced to the services - See para­graphs 33 to 41.

Restitution - Topic 376

Benefit acquired from the plaintiff - Mis­take - Ser­vices rendered by mistake - [See both Restitu­tion - Topic 235 ].

Cases Noticed:

Taylor v. Laird (1856), 25 L.J. Ex. 329, refd to. [para. 8].

Falcke v. Scottish Imperial Insurance Co. (1886), 34 Ch. D. 234, refd to. [para. 8].

Greenwood v. Bennett, [1973] 1 Q.B. 195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Moses v. MacFerlan (1760), 97 E.R. 676, refd to. [para. 10].

Sinclair v. Brougham, [1914] A.C. 398 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 12].

Deglman v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada, [1954] 3 D.L.R. 725, consd. [para. 13].

Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Law­son Combe Barbour Ltd., [1943] A.C. 32, refd to. [para. 14].

Morrison v. Canadian Surety Co., [1954] 4 D.L.R. 736 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Carleton (County) v. Ottawa (City) (1965), 52 D.L.R.(2d) 220 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Storthoaks (Rural Municipality), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 147; 5 N.R. 23; 55 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 17].

Rathwell v. Rathwell, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 436; 19 N.R. 91; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 289; [1978] 2 W.W.R. 101; 1 E.T.R. 307; 1 R.F.L.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 17].

Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834; 34 N.R. 384; 117 D.L.R.(3d) 257; 19 R.F.L.(2d) 165; 8 E.T.R. 143, refd to. [para. 17].

Sorochan v. Sorochan, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 38; 69 N.R. 81; 74 A.R. 67; [1986] 5 W.W.R. 289; 2 R.F.L.(2d) 225; 46 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 17].

Brook's Wharf and Bull Wharf Ltd. v. Goodman Brothers, [1937] 1 K.B. 534, refd to. [para. 19].

White, Fluhman and Eddy v. Central Trust Co. and Smith Estate (1984), 54 N.B.R.(2d) 293; 140 A.P.R. 293; 7 D.L.R.(4th) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

More (James) & Sons Ltd. v. University of Ottawa (1974), 49 D.L.R.(3d) 666 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Nicholson v. St. Denis et al. (1975), 8 O.R.(2d) 315 (C.A.), consd. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Common Law Procedure Act, 1852 (U.K.), c. 76, generally [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Restatement of the Law of Con­tracts, generally [para. 13].

Fridman, G.H.L., Restitution (2nd Ed. 1992), pp. 14, 15 [para. 29]; 17 [para. 27]; 18, 19 [paras. 27, 31]; 290, 291 [para. 33]; 299, 300 [paras. 33, 36]; 347 [para. 9].

Goff, Robert, and Jones, Gareth, The Law of Restitution (4th Ed. 1993), pp. 14, 15 [para. 27]; 18 [paras. 8, 9, 33]; 19 to 26 [para. 9]; 23 [para. 34]; 25, 26 [para. 35]; 172 [para. 9].

Maddaugh, Peter D., and McCamus, John D., The Law of Restitution (1990), pp. 7, 12, 13 [para. 12]; 26 [para. 31]; 27 [para. 25]; 38 [para. 44]; 42 [para. 34]; 46 [para. 46]; 50 [para. 26]; 305, 306 [para. 9].

Williston on Contracts (1936), vol. 2, s. 536 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Greg L. Bauman, for the plaintiff;

No one appearing for the defendants.

This case was heard before Beard, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Flin Flon Centre, who delivered the following judgment on April 7, 1995.