Is there any defence of passing on the costs of an action for unjust enrichment?

The defence of passing-on merely relates to the determination of one element of a claim founded on unjust enrichment, namely, a deprivation sustained by the plaintiff. Therefore, regardless of whether payments were made under protest and compulsion, if the costs were passed on there has not been any deprivation and no unjust enrichment. Payment under protest cannot alter the fact that one of the three elements of an action for unjust enrichment has not been satisfied. In Rathwell v. Rathwell, 1978 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 436 at 455, Dickson J. said: […] As a matter of principle, the court will not allow any man unjustly to appropriate to himself the value earned by the labours of another … but, for the principle to succeed, the facts must display an enrichment, a corresponding deprivation, and the absence of any juristic reason such as contract or disposition of law for the enrichment.