The Unjust Enrichment Apocalypse in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been forcefully argued that the doctrinal status of unjust enrichment in the UK is a ‘disaster’. This article considers the application of the ‘disaster’ argument to the context of Canadian unjust enrichment jurisprudence. An examination of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada reveals the shaky foundations of this jurisprudence. Many of the critiques made in the UK context apply to Canada. Furthermore, the article shows two additional serious flaws in Canadian jurisprudence. First, Canadian jurisprudence has failed to acknowledge the distinctive nature of restitutionary claims made in the context of cohabitants. Second, the development of Canadian private law’s unjust enrichment doctrine occurred (troublingly) in the context of public law cases and now this ill-informed doctrine provides (no less troublingly) the framework for the adjudication of private law cases. From this perspective the Canadian law of unjust enrichment is more than a disaster; it is an apocalypse.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".