Moore v Sweet: Four Lessons in Unjust Enrichment from the Supreme Court of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent decision in Moore v Sweet provided the Supreme Court of Canada with an opportunity to provide valuable guidance concerning the capacity of the unjust enrichment analysis to ground recovery in novel cases. The opportunity was not lost. First, the Court confirmed that resort should be made to the underlying unjust enrichment principle only in circumstances in which there is no existing and applicable restitutionary doctrine or rule. Second, the Court explained how the concept of “corresponding deprivation” may apply in three-party cases where the benefit comes from a source other than the plaintiff. Third, the application of the “no juristic reason” for the transfer element to transfers required by statute was clarified. Fourth, the Court provided guidance concerning the availability of the constructive trust remedy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".