Nepean Hydro Electric Commission v. Ontario Hydro, (1982) 41 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Dickson, Estey and Lamer, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 02, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1982), 41 N.R. 1 (SCC);132 DLR (3d) 193;16 BLR 215;1982 CanLII 42 (SCC);[1982] 1 SCR 347;41 NR 1;[1982] SCJ No 15 (QL)

Nepean Hydro v. Ont. Hydro (1982), 41 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Nepean Hydro Electric Commission v. Ontario Hydro

Indexed As: Nepean Hydro Electric Commission v. Ontario Hydro

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Dickson, Estey and Lamer, JJ.

March 2, 1982.

Summary:

Ontario Hydro sold electric power to the Nepean Hydro Electric Commission. Without authority, Ontario Hydro extra billed Nepean for $921,463. The extra billing related to the retirement of debt of Ontario Hydro. Nepean paid the extra billing but later claimed return of the money paid on the ground that the billing was not authorized by statute. The trial court dismissed Nepean's action. Nepean appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Nepean appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Dickson, J., dissenting, in the Supreme Court of Canada, would have allowed the appeal, would have set aside the judgments of the Ontario courts and would have allowed Nepean's action. Dickson, J., would have disregarded the distinction between mistake of fact and mistake of law in actions for the recovery of money paid by mistake.

Mistake - Topic 1701

Recovery of money paid under mistake of law - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the rationale for the rule that a person cannot recover money paid under mistake of law (see paragraph 49).

Mistake - Topic 1708

Recovery of money paid under mistake of law - Unauthorized act by a statutory body - Ontario Hydro sold electric power to Nepean Hydro Electric Commission - Without authority, Ontario Hydro extra billed Nepean for $921,463 (the billing related to the retirement of debt of Ontario Hydro) - Nepean paid the extra billing but later claimed return of the money paid on the ground that the billing was not authorized by statute - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of Nepean's claim on the ground that in the circumstances the rule applied which prohibits the recovery of money paid under mistake of law.

Words and Phrases

Unlawful - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "unlawful" for purposes of recovery of money paid under mistake of law (see paragraph 39).

Words and Phrases

Illegal - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "illegal" for purposes of recovery of money paid under mistake of law (see paragraph 39).

Cases Noticed:

Kelly v. Solari (1841), 9 M. & W. 54, refd to. [para. 19].

Kiriri Cotton Co. Ltd. v. Dewani, [1960] A.C. 192, refd to. [paras. 20 and 97].

Green v. Portsmouth Stadium Ltd., [1953] 2 All E.R. 102, refd to. [para. 21].

Hastelow v. Jackson (1828), 8 B & C 221; 108 E.R. 1026, refd to. [paras. 22 and 38].

Smith v. Bromley (1760), 2 Doug. 696; 99 E.R. 441, refd to. [para. 32].

Browning v. Morris (1778), 2 Cowp. 790; 98 E.R. 1364, refd to. [para. 32].

Lowry v. Bourdieu (1780), 2 Doug. K.B. 468; 99 E.R. 299, refd to. [para. 32].

Moses v. Macferlan (1760), 2 Burr. 1005; 97 E.R. 676, refd to. [para. 34].

Bilbie v. Lumley and Others (1802), 2 East 469; 102 E.R. 448, refd to. [paras. 36 and 76].

Langton v. Hughes (1813), 1 M & S 593; 105 E.R. 222, refd to. [paras. 37 and 84].

Brisbane v. Dacres (1813), 5 Taunt. 143; 128 E.R. 641, refd to. [para. 37].

Rural Municipality of Storthoaks v. Mobil Oil Canada Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 147; 5 N.R. 23, dist. [para. 41], refd to. [para. 108].

Eadie v. Corporation of the Township of Brantford, [1967] S.C.R. 573, dist. [para. 41], refd to. [para. 102].

Dominion Bank v. Union Bank of Canada (1908), 40 S.C.R. 366, refd to. [para. 41].

Maskell v. Horner, [1915] 3 K.B. 106, refd to. [para. 43].

Knutson v. Bourkes Syndicate, [1941] S.C.R. 419, refd to. [para. 44].

Municipality of St. John v. Fraser Brace Overseas Corp. et al., [1958] S.C.R. 263, refd to. [para. 44].

Harse v. Pearl Life Assurance Co., [1904] 1 K.B. 558, refd to. [para. 46].

Perrott v. Perrott (1811), 14 East 423; 104 E.R. 665, refd to. [para. 78].

Lansdown v. Lansdown (1730), Mosley 364; 2 Jac. & W. 205, refd to. [para. 83].

Rogers v. Ingham (1876), 3 Ch.D. 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Saxon Life Assurance Society, Re (1862), 2 J & H 408; 70 E.R. 1117, refd to. [para. 87].

Solle v. Butcher, [1950] 1 K.B. 671 (C.A. U.K.), refd to. [para. 93].

George (Porky) Jacobs Enterprises Ltd. v. City of Regina, [1964] S.C.R. 326, refd to. [paras. 93 and 102].

Cooper v. Phibbs (1867), L.R. 2 H.L. 149, refd to. [para. 94].

Farmer v. Arrundel (1772), 2 Black W. 823; 96 E.R. 485, refd to. [para. 95].

Bize v. Dickason (1786), 1 T.R. 285; 99 E.R. 1097, refd to. [para. 95].

County of Carleton v. City of Ottawa, [1965] S.C.R. 663, refd to. [para. 99].

St. Paul & Marine Ins. Co. v. Pure Oil Co., 63 F.2d 771 (2d Cir. 1933), refd to. [para. 101].

Larner v. London County Countil, [1949] 2 K.B. 683, refd to. [paras. 108 and 114].

Beauchamp v. Winn (1873), L.R. E & I App. 223 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 112].

Holt v. Markham, [1923] 1 K.B. 504, refd to. [para. 113].

Baylis v. Bishop of London, [1913] 1 Ch. 127, refd to. [para. 117].

Diplock, Re, [1948] Ch. 465 (C.A.), affd. [1951] A.C. 251, refd to. [para. 117].

Pauling's Settlement Trusts, Re, [1961] 3 All E.R. 713, aff'd. [1964] 1 Ch. 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

Statutes Noticed:

Power Corporation Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 354, sect. 7(3) [para. 10]; sect. 58 [para. 3]; sect. 76 [para. 4]; sect. 82 [para. 13].

Quebec Civil Code, art. 1047 [para. 100].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cheshire & Fifoot, The Law of Contract (9th Ed. 1976), page 641 [para. 18].

Treitel, The Law of Contract (5th Ed. 1979), page 369 [para. 22].

Goff and Jones, The Law of Restitution (2nd Ed. 1978), page 31 [para. 125], 91 [para. 90], 96 [para. 22].

Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (2nd Ed. 1977) [para. 39].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 8, page 453 [para. 43], vol. 16 page 998 [para. 122].

Winfield, Professor (1943), 59 L.Q.R. 327 [para. 75].

Champness, Roland, Mistake in the Law of Contract (1933) [para. 75].

Wright, Lord, Legal Essays and Addresses, Preface xix (1939) [para. 77].

Williston on Contracts (3rd Ed.), vol. 13, page 536 [para. 78].

Foulke, Professor (1911), 11 Columb. Law Rev. 299 [para. 79].

Restatement, Law of Restitution, 1937, page 179 [para. 80].

Waddams, The Law of Contracts (1977), page 212 [para. 87], page 213 [paras. 80 and 98].

Palmer, The Law of Restitution (1978), vol. 3, page 338 [para. 80]; 340 [para. 85], 342 [para. 100].

Corbin on Contracts (1960), vol. 3, page 752 [para. 90], page 756 [para. 80].

Cheshire & Fifoot, The Law of Contract (9th Ed. 1976), page 641 [para. 81, page 644 [para. 93].

Anson, The Law of Contract (25th Ed. 1979), page 646 [para. 87].

Fridman, Law of Contract in Canada (1976), page 88 [para. 92].

Patterson, Improvements in the Law of Restitution (1954-55), 40 Cornell L.Q. 667 [para. 101].

McTurnan, Professor, An Approach to Common Mistake in English Law (1963), 41 Can. Bar Rev. 1 [para. 102].

Counsel:

D.K. Laidlaw, Q.C., and R.J. McComb, for the appellant;

R.F. Wilson, Q.C., and Peter D. Lauwers, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, DICKSON, ESTEY and LAMER, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on April 1 and 2, 1981.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered on March 2, 1982 and the following opinions were filed:

ESTEY, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 52;

DICKSON, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 53 to 126.

MARTLAND and LAMER, JJ., concurred with ESTEY, J.

LASKIN, C.J.C., concurred with DICKSON, J.