Digest: Saskatchewan (Government Insurance) v Young, 2018 SKQB 81

• Date: March 08, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 81

Docket Number: QB17468 , QB 94/15 JCMJ

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-03-08

Judges:

• Chow

Subjects:

• Insurance � Automobile � Insurable Interest � Appeal
• Statutes � Interpretation � Traffic Safety Act, Section 2(x)
• Statutes � Interpretation � Automobile Accident Insurance Act, Section 78, Section 39
• Statutes � Interpretation � Small Claims Act, 1997, Section 40

Digest: The appellant, Saskatchewan Government Insurance, appealed as of right pursuant to s. 39 of The Small Claims Act, 1997 (rep.) from the decision of the Small Claims Court granting judgment in favour of the respondent (see: 2015 SKPC 56). The owner of a vehicle had allowed the registration to lapse when his driver�s licence was suspended in 2011. He executed a transfer of the vehicle in favour of the respondent, his roommate, who paid the nominal sum of $5.00, whereupon the insurance agent issued a certificate of registration and insurance. The original owner worked out of town and the respondent used the vehicle for his own purposes. After an accident, the respondent filed a proof of loss and the appellant determined the vehicle a total loss. The appellant then obtained statements from the respondent and the holder of the previous registration wherein they disclosed the facts leading to the respondent�s operation and registration of the vehicle and the appellant concluded that the respondent had no financial interest and therefore no insurable interest in the vehicle. SGI advised the respondent that the vehicle had been improperly registered and the insurance coverage was retroactively cancelled and his claim denied. The respondent brought an action in Small Claims Court and the judge awarded damages in the amount of $8,500. The issues were whether the trial judge erred: 1) in concluding that the appellant�s application of the common law principle of insurable interest in this case was a discretionary exercise of policy or that the principle was not a valid basis upon which to deny coverage pursuant to The Automobile Accident Insurance Act (AAIA); 2) in law by not properly considering material evidence of the respondent�s lack of ownership and beneficial interest in the vehicle and by finding the respondent properly insured same; 3) in law by failing to consider the provisions of s. 78 of the AAIA; and 4) in awarding damages.
HELD: The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Small Claims Court for a new...