2 total
A subcontractor's unjust enrichment claim against a federal Crown owner is precluded by existing contracts serving as juristic reasons.
The plaintiff, a subcontractor, sued the general contractor, a financial corporation, and Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for payment on a construction project.
PWGSC, later renamed The Attorney General of Canada (AGC), brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim against it.
The court granted the motion, finding no reasonable cause of action for breach of contract, breach of trust under the Construction Act (which does not apply to the federal Crown), or unjust enrichment, due to the existence of juristic reasons (contracts between owner-contractor and contractor-subcontractor, and the comprehensive scheme of the Construction Act).
The court dismissed an inmate's habeas corpus application, finding his involuntary transfer and security reclassification procedurally fair and reasonable.
The applicant, a federal inmate, sought an order in the nature of habeas corpus challenging his reclassification from minimum to medium security and his involuntary transfer.
He argued that the decision was unlawful due to procedural unfairness, specifically regarding the withholding of information.
The court, applying the principles from Mission Institution v. Khela, found that the prison authorities had met their onus to prove that the decision was procedurally fair and reasonable.
The authorities had reasonable grounds to withhold certain information under s. 27(3) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to protect safety and security, and the disclosed information, along with the sealed affidavit, supported the reliability of sources and the lawfulness of the decision.
The application was dismissed.
