L. John Alexander

The appellant developer successfully sued the respondent municipality for unjust enrichment and was awarded $1.08 million.

After the Supreme Court restored the trial judgment, a dispute arose regarding post-judgment interest.

The appellant brought a motion for a re-hearing to clarify the judgment.

The Supreme Court dismissed the motion for a re-hearing, noting that section 50 of the Supreme Court Act conclusively addresses the issue, meaning interest at post-judgment rates accrues from the time of the trial judgment until paid.

The appellant developer agreed to construct $1.08 million in extra infrastructure improvements for the respondent municipality in exchange for an implied commitment to maintain zoning for a waterfront development.

After the developer completed the improvements, the municipality down-zoned the property, preventing the development.

The Supreme Court of Canada previously ruled the municipality's zoning commitment was ultra vires and unenforceable as a contract.

In this unjust enrichment claim, the Court held that the municipality could not rely on the ultra vires contract as a juristic reason to retain the benefit of the improvements without paying for them.

The appeal was allowed and the municipality was ordered to reimburse the developer $1.08 million.

The appellant developer entered into an agreement to purchase land from a Crown corporation, subject to the respondent City granting subdivision and zoning.

The City granted the zoning, but later down-zoned the water lots after public objections to the developer's plans.

The developer sued for breach of contract, arguing the City breached an implied term not to rezone for a reasonable time.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the City did not have the statutory capacity to make such an implied term, and that it would be an illegal fetter on the municipality's discretionary legislative powers.