Goulet v. Compagnie d'assurance-vie Transamerica du Canada, (2002) 284 N.R. 139 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 08, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 284 N.R. 139 (SCC);2002 SCC 21;AZ-50115737;284 NR 139;210 DLR (4th) 22;[2002] 1 SCR 719;JE 2002-486

Goulet v. Transamerica Life (2002), 284 N.R. 139 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. MR.003

Compagnie d'assurance-vie Transamerica du Canada (appelante) c. Danielle Goulet (intimée)

(27939; 2002 SCC 21)

Indexed As: Goulet v. Compagnie d'assurance-vie Transamerica du Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

March 8, 2002.

Summary:

Arbic died when the bomb he was placing in a car exploded. His wife Goulet claimed the life insurance proceeds under a policy that Arbic had on his life. The insurer Transamerica refused to pay. Goulet sued Transamerica.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported [1996] R.R.A. 1131, allowed the action. Transamerica appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2000] R.J.Q. 1066 dismissed the appeal. Transamerica appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Insurance - Topic 3302

Payment of insurance proceeds - Actions - Defences - Intentional act by insured to bring about loss or damage (public policy rule) - Arbic died when the bomb he was placing in a car exploded - His wife Gou­let claimed the life insurance proceeds under a policy that Arbic had on his life - The insurer refused to pay - Goulet sued - The insurer pleaded the principle that an insurer never insured the intentional fault of the insured - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument and affirmed a decision that allowed Goulet's action - The act committed by Arbic was not an intentional act - Although Arbic was obviously committing a serious indictable offence when he died, he did not intend to bring about his own death - The incident that occurred was still contingent - See paragraphs 31 to 38.

Insurance - Topic 3303

Payment of insurance proceeds - Actions - Defences - Criminal act by insured to bring about loss or damage - Arbic died when the bomb he was placing in a car exploded - His wife Goulet claimed the life insurance proceeds under a policy that Arbic had on his life - The insurer refused to pay - Goulet sued - The insurer argued that the then applicable art. 2550 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada allowed it to set up against an innocent beneficiary the uncodified public order rule that "no one may profit from his or her own crime", which it could have asserted against the insured - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument and affirmed a deci­sion that allowed Goulet's action - The court held that the public order rule that "no one may profit from his or her own crime" existed in Quebec insurance law - The court then held that because the rule did not affect the validity of the formation of the contract and was not based on the terms of the insurance contract, art. 2550 could not be used to deprive the innocent beneficiary of his or her claim where the insured died when committing an indict­able offence - The public order rule could not be set up against Goulet here, absent a clause in the insurance contract that the insurer was not required to pay the pro­ceeds if the insured died in the commis­sion of an indictable offence - See para­graphs 39 to 57.

Quebec Civil Law - Topic 3

General principles - Rule against profiting from own wrongful act - Arbic died when the bomb he was placing in a car exploded - His wife Goulet claimed the life insur­ance proceeds under a policy that Arbic had on his life - The insurer refused to pay - Goulet sued - The insurer argued that the then applicable art. 2550 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada allowed it to set up against an innocent beneficiary the un­codified public order rule that "no one may profit from his or her own crime", which it could have asserted against the insured - Goulet replied that since that public order rule was not in the Civil Code, the Quebec courts could not create it judicially - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected Gou­let's assertion - Civil law has long recog­nized the authority of the courts to define and develop these principles of fundamen­tal law, or rules of community life, that informed the entire manner in which pri­vate law applied - See paragraphs 39 to 51.

Quebec Civil Law - Topic 3

General principles - Rule against profiting from own wrongful act - [See Insurance - Topic 3303 ].

Cases Noticed:

Oldfield v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (2002), 284 N.R. 104 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

Schilling Estate et al. v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada (1997), 24 O.T.C. 318; 40 C.C.L.I.(2d) 237 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1997), 108 O.A.C. 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Brissette v. Westbury Life Insurance Co., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 87; 142 N.R. 104; 58 O.A.C. 10, refd to. [para. 20].

Straits Towing Ltd. et al. v. Walkem Ma­chinery & Equipment Ltd. and Canadian Indemnity Co., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 309; 3 N.R. 523, refd to. [para. 27].

Stats v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1153; 22 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 27].

Pickford Black Ltd. v. Canada General Insurance Co., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 261; 7 N.R. 585, refd to. [para. 27].

Castrassur c. Camat, [1993] R.G.A.T. 648 (Cass. civ. 1re Fr.), note P. Rémy, refd to. [para. 33].

Godbout v. Longueuil (Ville), [1995] R.J.Q. 2561 (C.A.), affd. [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 43].

Villa c. Brasserie Labatt Ltée, [1995] R.J.Q. 73; 67 Q.A.C. 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Cameron v. Canadian Factors Corp., [1971] S.C.R. 148, refd to. [para. 44].

Bélair c. Lasalle, [1970] C.A. 275 (Qué.), refd to. [para. 45].

Foncière Compagnie d'Assurance de France c. Perras, [1942] B.R. 231 (Qué. C.A.), affd. [1943] S.C.R. 165, refd to. [para. 45].

Stats v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. (1976), 14 O.R.(2d) 233 (C.A.), consd. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Code of Lower Canada, art. 13, art. 2468, art. 2481, art. 2500, art. 2502, art. 2532, art. 2550, art. 2559, art. 2563 [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bergeron, Jean-Guy, Les contrats d'assu­rance (terrestre): lignes et entre-lignes, 1992, t. 2, pp. 18 [paras. 32, 37]; 19 to 20 [para. 37].

Karim, Vincent, L'ordre public en droit économique: contrats, concurrence, consommation (1999), 40 C. de D. 403, p. 409 [paras. 43, 46].

Lefebvre, Brigitte, Quelques considérations sur la notion d'ordre public à la lumière du Code civil du Québec, dans Dévelop­pements récents en droit civil, 1994, p. 149 [para. 43].

Picard, M., et Besson, A., Les assurances terrestres en droit français, 4e éd., 1975, t. 1, p. 434 [para. 54].

Counsel:

Alain Létourneau and René Vallerand for the appellant, Compagnie d'assurance-vie Transamerica du Canada;

Jean Blaquière, for the respondent, Goulet.

Solicitors of Record:

Pépin, Létourneau, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant, Compagnie d'assurance-vie Transamerica du Canada;

Petit, Blaquière & Dagenais, for the res­pondent, Goulet.

This appeal was heard on November 8, 2001 by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastara­che, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages by Le­Bel, J., on March 8, 2002.