A brief but important judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was released
today:

Alberta v. Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, 2011 SCC 24
http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc24/2011scc24.html

Among other things, the court restates the test for the finding of a
fiduciary obligation, confirming that vulnerability alone is never enough
and in general expressing scepticism about the appropriateness of finding
that such a duty is owed by the Crown. A duty of care is also rejected. A
claim for unjust enrichment was allowed to go to trial, with the rejection
of an argument by the Crown in right of Alberta that the Kingstreet case
decided that unjust enrichment claims could not be brought against the
Crown:

"91. In my view, Kingstreet stands for the proposition that public law
remedies, rather than unjust enrichment, are the proper route for claims
relating restitution of taxes levied under an ultra vires statute, on the
ground that the framework of unjust enrichment is ill-suited to dealing with
issues raised by a claim that a measure is ultra vires. However, Kingstreet
leaves open the possibility of suing for unjust enrichment in other
circumstances. The claim pleaded in this case is not for taxes paid under
an ultra vires statute. It is not therefore precluded by this Court¹s
decisions in Kingstreet."

Lionel