An equivalent argument was through to the Legal into the Garland No. dos. Therefore, the new plaintiff lead a category step, trying to restitution of late fee charges (LLPs) accumulated of the defendant, Customers Gas Co. The fresh LLPs was imposed and you may collected according to an order away from this new Ontario Opportunity Panel (produced in its legislation: look for 52), hence authorized and you can expected Consumers Fuel Co. so you can costs brand new LLPs. Users Gas Co. debated one, just like the LLPs was basically bought because of the OEB, there clearly was an excellent juristic reason for their enrichment. Within the rejecting it argument, the new Judge kept:
Beneath the 2nd stage of the juristic cause study in Garland Zero
in the event the design was inoperative by virtue from a dispute which have s. 347 of one’s Violent Code, up coming an excellent juristic reason isn’t present. If you ask me, new OEB rate sales was constitutionally inoperative to your the quantity away from their argument with s. 347 of Criminal Code. ( 51)
dos, courts are to thought if or not, in all of one’s points of your transaction, there can be one other reason so you’re able to refute recuperation. In this regard, the Courtroom would be to think about the sensible hopes of the newest events and you can societal plan factors.
Again, this new Supreme Process of law research in Garland Zero. dos try informative. While the Courtroom had found that new OEB orders have been inoperative, it stored that activities reliance on them is actually relevant when you look at the considering their sensible standards. Customers Energy Co. got a reasonable assumption it can easily charges and recover costs because it you will definitely predict the OEB wouldn’t approve a good punishment program that was when you look at the ticket of Violent Code. By comparison car title loans in CT, customers had no sensible assumption that they do not have to help you shell out a fee for late percentage. Thus, up until Consumers Gas Co. are wear see that the fresh fees would-be illegal, its dependence on new OEBs orders considering good juristic cause for the enrichment. This new Judge proceeded, yet not, that:
in 1994, if this action try commenced, Users Gas are put-on find of your really serious possibility one to it actually was violating the Violent Code in recharging the fresh LPPs. That it options turned an actuality if this Legal kept that LPPs was in fact more than this new s. 347 restrict. People Gasoline possess requested that OEB change their rates framework until the amount is actually adjudicated to make sure that it was not during the ticket of your own Criminal Password otherwise questioned for backup arrangements become made. Their decision not to do that, while the guidance to your appellant pointed out when you look at the oral submissions, is actually a gamble. Following the step was began and Users Energy are put on notice that there can be a serious options the fresh LPPs broken the fresh new Unlawful Password, it had been no longer realistic to have Customers Gas so you can rely on the fresh OEB speed instructions in order to authorize the LPPs . (59)
It is noticeable out of this cause, you to definitely unless there is a reasonable factor in an event to help you believe that an or illegal arrangement try judge, it’s unreasonable for the class to put any standard towards one to plan
Here, there is absolutely no facts that A ok got a factor to help you accept that the brand new fees that it recharged weren’t inside violation of the Code. It employs that A ok didn’t come with practical presumption one to fees in excess of the fresh new criminal rate would be reduced.
Exactly what out-of societal plan? For the Garland No. dos, People Energy Co. argued so it got, within the reliance upon the brand new OEB purchases, altered the reputation by the maybe not battery charging highest fuel costs which this is a reason to allow it to hold brand new costs. The newest Legal kept:
