Casimel et al. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, (1993) 30 B.C.A.C. 279 (CA)

• Judge: Lambert, Hutcheon and Hinds, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: February 26, 1993
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1993), 30 B.C.A.C. 279 (CA)

Casimel v. ICBC (1993), 30 B.C.A.C. 279 (CA);

    49 W.A.C. 279

MLB headnote and full text

Louise Casimel and Francis Casimel (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (defendant/respondent)

(CA014532)

Indexed As: Casimel et al. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lambert, Hutcheon and Hinds, JJ.A.

September 14, 1993.

Summary:

The plaintiff grandparents sued their insurer for "no fault" death benefits arising from the death of their grandson, whom they had adopted according to custom. The plaintiffs claimed benefits as "dependant parents" of the deceased. The trial judge, in a decision reported in 58 B.C.L.R.(2d) 316, dismissed the claim. The plaintiff appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Family Law - Topic 1409

Adoption - Native custom adoptions - Native grandparents adopted their biological grandson according to band custom - When he died they were "dependant parents" within s. 1(1) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Regulations - The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed their claim for "no fault" death benefits - The court held that the status conferred by aboriginal customary adoption was recognized by courts for application of the principles of the common law and statute law to the persons whose status was established by the customary adoption - There was nothing in the provincial Adoption Act or the Indian Act which qualified, regulated or extinguished the status conferred by a customary adoption - The adoption gave rise to status rights now recognized and protected by the common law and the Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 - See paragraphs 26 to 53.

Insurance - Topic 5060

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - Primary dependant - What constitutes - Dependant parents - [See Family Law - Topic 1409 ].

Cases Noticed:

Michell v. Dennis and Dennis, [1984] 2 W.W.R. 449 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1993] 5 W.W.R. 97; 30 B.C.A.C. 1; 49 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 25].

Mabo v. Queensland (1992), 107 A.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

Connolly v. Woolrich (1867), 11 L.C. Jur. 197; 17 R.J.R.Q. 75; 1 C.N.L.C. 70, affd. 17 R.J.R.Q. 266; 1 R.L.O.S. 253; 1 C.N.C.L. 151, consd. [paras. 30, 32].

R. v. Nan-E-Quis-A-Ka (1889), 1 Terr. L.R. 211; 2 C.N.L.C. 368 (N.W.T.C.A.), consd. [para. 33].

R. v. Williams (1921), 30 B.C.R. 303 (S.C.), consd. [para. 33].

Ex parte Cote (1971), 5 C.C.C.(2d) 49, consd. [para. 33].

R. v. Bear's Shin Bone (1899), 4 Terr. L.R. 173; 3 C.C.C. 329 (N.W.T.S.C.), consd. [para. 34].

Noah, Re (1961), 32 D.L.R.(2d) 185 (N.W.T.S.C.), consd. [para. 35].

Katie's Adoption Petition, Re (1961), 32 D.L.R.(2d) 686 (N.W.T.T.C.), consd. [para. 38].

Beaulieu's Re (1969), 3 D.L.R.(3d) 479 (N.W.T.T.C.), consd. [para. 39].

Deborah E4-789, Re (1972), 27 D.L.R.(3d) 225 (N.W.T.S.C.), affd. 28 D.L.R.(3d) 483 (N.W.T.C.A.), consd. [para. 40].

Wah-Shee, Re (1975), 57 D.L.R.(3d) 743 (N.W.T.S.C.), consd. [para. 41].

Tagornak, Re (1983), 50 A.R. 237 (N.W.T.S.C.), consd. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Adoption Act, S.B.C. 1920, c. 2, generally [para. 44].

Adoption Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 4, generally [para. 44]; sect. 11(5) [paras. 45-46]; sect. 13.6(1)(b) [para. 45].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35 [paras. 17, 25, 52].

Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, sect. 2(1) [para. 48].

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act Regulations, sect. 1(1) [para. 14]; sect. 92, sect. 93, sect. 94 [paras. 7, 53].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hansard, House of Commons Debate, June 10, 1985, vol. 4, pp. 5564-5565 [para. 49].

Zlotkin, Norman, Judicial Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Law in Canada: Selected Marriage and Adoption Cases, [1984] 4 C.N.L.R. 1 [para. 29].

Counsel:

S.F. Peleshok, for the appellants;

T.P. Matte, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 26, 1993, before Lambert, Hutcheon and Hinds, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on September 14, 1993, by Lambert, J.A.