Zaidan Group Ltd. v. London (City), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 593
The Zaidan Group Ltd. Appellant
v.
The Corporation of the City of London Respondent
Indexed as: Zaidan Group Ltd. v. London (City)
File No.: 21850.
1991: November 7; 1991: November 21.
Present: La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Restitution ‑‑ Unjust enrichment ‑‑ Taxpayer successfully appealing municipal tax assessment ‑‑ City refunding overpayment of taxes ‑‑ Taxpayer claiming interest allegedly earned by city on overpayment ‑‑ Statute empowering city to pass by‑law authorizing interest payments on tax overpayments ‑‑ City not passing such a by‑law ‑‑ Doctrine of unjust enrichment not applicable ‑‑ Municipal Interest and Discount Rates Act, 1982, S.O. 1982, c. 44, s. 6(1).
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Municipal Interest and Discount Rates Act, 1982, S.O. 1982, c. 44, s. 6(1).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1990), 71 O.R. (2d) 65, 64 D.L.R. (4th) 514, 36 O.A.C. 384, 47 M.P.L.R. 1, 35 E.T.R. 162, reversing a judgment of the Divisional Court (1988), 64 O.R. (2d) 438, 49 D.L.R. (4th) 681, 37 M.P.L.R. 261, 30 E.T.R. 59, 48 R.P.R. 253, affirming a judgment of the High Court of Justice (1987), 58 O.R. (2d) 667, 36 D.L.R. (4th) 443, 35 M.P.L.R. 148, 25 E.T.R. 283, 43 R.P.R. 276, allowing appellant's action to recover interest on overpaid taxes. Appeal dismissed.
Edward Richmond and Joseph Richmond, for the appellant.
James R. Caskey, Q.C., for the respondent.
//The Court//
The following is the judgment delivered by
The Court -- We are all of the view that this appeal must be dismissed. The appellant's claim to interest on an overpayment of tax based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not available in this case in the light of s. 6(1) of the Municipal Interest and Discount Rates Act, 1982, S.O. 1982, c. 44. This section authorizes a municipality to pass a by-law for the payment of interest and also gives a municipality a discretion to do so. In this case, the City of London did not pass such a by-law. Accordingly, the claim for unjust enrichment fails and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant: Richmond, Stambler & Mills, London.
Solicitors for the respondent: Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler, London.