Coulter v. Co-operators Life Insurance Co., 2013 ABCA 295

• Judge: Côte, O'Ferrall and Veldhuis, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 06, 2013
• Citations: 2013 ABCA 295;(2013), 556 A.R. 290

Coulter v. Co-op Life Ins. (2013), 556 A.R. 290; 584 W.A.C. 290 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. SE.022

Sandi Coulter and Tenille Coulter (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Co-operators Life Insurance Company (respondent/defendant)

(1303-0090-AC; 2013 ABCA 295)

Indexed As: Coulter v. Co-operators Life Insurance Co.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côte, O'Ferrall and Veldhuis, JJ.A.

September 6, 2013.

Summary:

The deceased died less than two years after purchasing extra life insurance coverage. The beneficiary sued to enforce full payment. The insurer denied liability for the extra coverage portion of the policy, relying on the equitable defence of misrepresentation on the application for extra coverage. At issue was whether the insurer's equitable defence barred a jury trial under the Jury Act.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that an equitable defence precluded a jury trial. The beneficiary appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, O'Ferrall, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 5105

Juries and jury trials - Right to a jury - When available - A life insurance beneficiary sued the insurer to enforce payment of the full amount of the policy - The insurer denied liability for the extra coverage portion of the policy, pleading the equitable defence of misrepresentation on the application for extra coverage - Section 17(1)(b) of the Jury Act provided for a jury trial, upon request, for an action founded on a contract in which the amount claimed exceeded the amount prescribed by regulation - The beneficiary's claim would fall under s. 17(1)(b) - The issue was whether the insurer's equitable defence precluded that right to a jury - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that a claim for equitable relief by a defendant precluded a jury trial under the Act - The beneficiary's claim to confirm the insurer's avoidance of a contract was not a claim seeking an amount of money - The requirement under s. 17(1)(b) of an "amount claimed" was not met - Equitable defences, like equitable claims, precluded a jury trial - Equitable relief involved discretion in granting a remedy, a matter unsuited for a jury - It would be almost impossible to properly instruct a jury on the issue - The court stated that "jury charges usually are largely tailored to the issues and facts and evidence at hand, and try to stay away from abstract legal doctrines, even though they give the jury mandatory rules for deciding the case. That is not possible with equitable doctrines".

Cases Noticed:

Hubbard v. Edmonton (City), [1917] 3 W.W.R. 732; 37 D.L.R. 458 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Olympia & York Developments Ltd. v. Fourth Avenue Properties Ltd. et al., [1982] 5 W.W.R. 88; 36 A.R. 245 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Henderson v. Henderson (1985), 39 Sask.R. 269; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 33 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1985), 62 N.R. 396; 41 Sask.R. 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Racey v. International Harvester Co., [1917] 1 W.W.R. 606; 32 D.L.R. 131 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Cuttell, [1955] O.R. 8; [1955] 2 D.L.R. 583 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Derry v. Peek (1889), 14 App. Cas. 337 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 9].

Hoskins v. Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co., [1930] 1 W.W.R. 369; [1930] 2 D.L.R. 696 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Hammond, [2000] 9 W.W.R. 179; 249 A.R. 295 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Demeter v. Occidental Life Insurance Co. (1979), 23 O.R.(2d) 31; 94 D.L.R.(3d) 465 (H.C.), affd. (1979), 26 O.R.(2d) 391; 102 D.L.R.(3d) 454 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Dreisig v. Kowalchuk (1991), 126 A.R. 78; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 364 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 612; 354 N.R. 201; 218 O.A.C. 339; 2006 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 23].

Pacific National Investments Ltd. v. Victoria (City), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 575; 327 N.R. 100; 206 B.C.A.C. 99; 338 W.A.C. 99; 2004 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 23].

Davies v. Nelson, [1928] 1 D.L.R. 254; 61 O.L.R. 457 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Tree Island Steel Co. v. Treeter (1976), 2 A.R. 34; 72 D.L.R.(3d) 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wedeene River Contracting Co. et al. (1992), 7 C.P.C.(3d) 402 (B.C.S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 44].

Haggart Construction Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. (1993), 141 A.R. 281; 46 W.A.C. 281; 18 C.P.C.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Nelson et al. v. Stelter et al. (2007), 424 A.R. 266; 2007 ABQB 552, refd to. [para. 45].

Rich v. Henson, [1923] 1 W.W.R. 812; [1923] 2 D.L.R. 111 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Rawluk v. Rawluk, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 70; 103 N.R. 321; 38 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 59].

Walker v. R., [1939] S.C.R. 214, refd to. [para. 59].

St. Denis v. Trumbley (1977), 4 A.R. 212; 3 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. and Fikowski v. Maritime Life Assurance Co., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 490; 168 N.R. 381; 155 A.R. 321; 73 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 60].

Koczka v. Carruthers, [1967] 2 O.R. 176 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Witts v. Sax and Western Union Insurance Co. (1980), 22 A.R. 249; 109 D.L.R.(3d) 674 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Shoolbred v. Clarke (1890), 17 S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 61].

K. v. H. (1985), 60 A.R. 329; 38 Alta. L.R.(2d) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Houg Alberta Ltd. v. 417034 Alberta Ltd. (1991), 117 A.R. 196; 2 W.A.C. 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Stephan v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (2000), 130 O.A.C. 323; 48 O.R.(3d) 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Stone's Jewellery Ltd. v. Arora et al., [2010] 5 W.W.R. 297; 484 A.R. 286; 2009 ABQB 656, refd to. [para. 72].

Kadishewitz v. Laurentian Insurance Co., [1931] 4 D.L.R. 401 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

779975 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Mmmuffins Canada Corp. et al., [2009] O.T.C. Uned. C37; 62 Bus. L.R.(4th) 137 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 74].

1490664 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Dig This Garden Retailers Ltd. et al. (2005), 201 O.A.C. 95; 256 D.L.R.(4th) 451 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Chatterjee v. International Film Co. (1942), L.R. 70 I.A. 35 (Cal. P.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

American-Abell Engine and Thresher Co. v. McMillan (1909), 42 S.C.R. 377, refd to. [para. 81].

Pearse v. Morrice (1834), 2 Ad. & El. 84; 111 E.R. 32, refd to. [para. 83].

Toy v. Hopkins (1909), 212 U.S. 542; 29 S. Ct. 416; 53 L. Ed. 644, refd to. [para. 84].

Barnet v. Barnet, [1934] O.R. 155; [1934] 2 D.L.R. 60, refd to. [para. 89].

Statutes Noticed:

Jury Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-3, sect. 17(1) [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Atkin's Encyclopedia of Court Forms in Civil Proceedings (2nd Ed.) (2000 Issue), vol. 18(1), pp. 430 to 432 [para. 42].

Chitty on Contracts (31st Ed. 2012), paras. 1-102 [para. 88]; 6-134 [para. 83].

Coté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (4th Ed. 2011), pp. 538 to 544, 549, fn. 352 [para. 59].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (5th Ed. 2006), p. 286 [para. 15].

Halsbury's Laws of England (2nd Ed.) (1936), vol. 23, pp. 103 to 107, paras. 144 to 145 [para. 41].

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed.) (1959), pp. 874 to 875, paras. 1624 to 1625 [para. 41].

Holmested and Langton, Ontario Judicature Act (5th Ed. 1940), pp. 892, 893 [para. 18].

McCamus, John D., The Law of Contracts (2nd Ed. 2012), para. 384-49 [para. 87].

Seaton's Judgments and Orders (5th Ed. 1893), vol. 3, pp. 1794 to 1795 [para. 42].

Seaton's Judgments and Orders (7th Ed. 1912), vol. 3, pp. 2091 to 2092 [para. 42].

Snell's Equity (31st Ed. 2005), p. 308, para. 12-04 [para. 23].

Spry, Ian, The Principles of Equitable Remedies (6th Ed. 2001), pp. 4, 6, 149, 150 [para. 23].

Swan, Angela, and Adamski, Jakub, Canadian Contract Law (3rd Ed. 2012), p. 748; § 8.180 [para. 9]; § 8.181 [para. 13].

Treitel, Guenter H., The Law of Contract (13th Ed. 2011), p. 374, § 9-029 [para. 9].

Williston, Walter B., Precedents in Practice (1965), pp. 664 to 665 [para. 42].

Counsel:

C.J. Brown, for the plaintiffs/appellants;

J.T. Neilson, Q.C., for the respondent/defendant.

This appeal was heard on June 4, 2013, before Côte, O'Ferrall and Veldhuis, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On September 6, 2013, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Côte, J.A. (Veldhuis, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 91;

O'Ferrall, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 92 to 103.