Iacobucci J. noted that later formulations of the Pettkus threefold test broadened factors a judge must consider when determining whether there was an absence of juristic reason for the defendant to retain the benefit it had received. He referred to Peter v. Beblow, 1993 CanLII 126 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980 [Peter], at p. 990 and the words of McLachlin J., as she was then: It is at this stage that the court must consider whether the enrichment and detriment, morally neutral in themselves, are ‘unjust’. The test is flexible, the factors to be considered may vary with the situation before the court.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.