Grams et al. v. Maple Leaf Metal Industries Ltd. et al., 2006 ABQB 146

• Judge: Gallant, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 17, 2006
• Citations: 2006 ABQB 146;(2006), 393 A.R. 52 (QB)

Grams v. Maple Leaf Metal Ind. (2006), 393 A.R. 52 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. MR.024

Walter Grams and Eva Grams and Walter Grams and Eva Grams as Administrators of the Estate of Cory Grams, Deceased (plaintiffs) v. Maple Leaf Metal Industries Ltd. and Zurich Life Insurance Company of Canada (defendants)

(0003 19953; 2006 ABQB 146)

Indexed As: Grams et al. v. Maple Leaf Metal Industries Ltd. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Gallant, J.

February 17, 2006.

Summary:

The Grams’ son (Cory) died while at work. The Grams sued Cory’s employer in their personal capacity as beneficiaries of, and as administrators of, Cory’s estate, asserting that the employer was negligent in failing to provide insurance coverage under the employment contract or, alternatively, had breached the contract. The Grams settled a claim against the employer’s group policy insurer.

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that the employer breached the duty of care owed to Cory and its implied contractual obligations by not providing Cory with sufficient information about the scope of insurance benefits available, the applicable time lines for applying and the consequences of failing to do so. Cory contributed to the damages that resulted from the breaches by not making inquiries. The court apportioned liability equally pursuant to s. 1(1) of the Contributory Negligence Act. The court ordered that an exhibit consisting of copies of insurance enrolment forms of other employees be sealed to protect their privacy.

Contracts - Topic 3944

Performance or breach - Relief from forfeiture - When available - The Grams’ son (Cory) was killed on the job - He had applied for coverage under the employer’s group insurance policy the day before his death - The Grams sued the employer, asserting that if Cory waived his right to insurance benefits, the court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture - The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that the Grams were not entitled to relief against forfeiture - There was no satisfactory evidence that Cory intended to enrol in the policy until the day before his death - It appeared that due partly to Cory’s own inaction, no contract for insurance coverage arose and there was no corresponding breach of that contract against which Cory could claim relief against forfeiture - This was not a case where Cory breached any covenant or condition and, as a result, was deprived of benefits - There was no reason to accede to the Grams’ argument for a modern, broader application of the doctrine - See paragraphs 83 to 192.

Courts - Topic 1404

Administration - Public access to judicial proceedings (incl. court records) - The Grams’ son (Cory) died while at work - The Grams sued Cory’s employer, asserting that the employer was negligent in failing to provide insurance coverage under the employment contract or, alternatively, had breached the contract - At trial, the Grams tendered, as exhibit 3, copies of group insurance enrolment forms filed by some of Cory’s co-workers - The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ordered that the records in exhibit 3 be sealed - The individuals named in the forms presumably did not know that their personal health information has been tendered in open court and were not given an opportunity to prevent that disclosure - The fundamental importance of those individuals' privacy outweighed any adverse effect of a sealing order on the rights of the parties and the administration of justice - Sealing only exhibit 3, while leaving the rest of the court file open to the public, was the option that best protected those individuals from harm while at the same time respected the importance of the open court principle and minimally impaired the right of public access to court records - See paragraphs 226 to 230.

Courts - Topic 1408

Administration - General - Sealing of documents - [See Courts - Topic 1404 ].

Courts - Topic 1443

Administration - Documents filed by parties - Public right of access - General - [See Courts - Topic 1404 ].

Damages - Topic 1297

Exemplary or punitive damages - Conditions precedent (or when awarded) - The Grams’ son (Cory) died while at work - Cory’s employer breached the duty of care owed to Cory and its implied contractual obligations by not providing Cory with sufficient information about the scope of insurance benefits available, the applicable time lines for applying and the consequences of failing to do so - The Grams asserted that they would have been the beneficiaries if Cory had obtained insurance and that they were entitled to punitive damages as a result of the treatment they received from the employer - The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that the employer’s conduct did not sufficiently approach the standard required for punitive damages - The employer had justifiable reasons for doubting its liability and was not unreasonable in declining to pay the Grams’ claim without a decision of the court - While the employer should have been more prompt and thorough with respect to providing Cory with information, the Grams had not established that the employer’s misconduct was high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible conduct that departed to a marked degree from ordinary standards of decent behaviour - See paragraphs 223 to 225.

Equity - Topic 1068

Equitable relief - Relief form forfeiture - Grounds for relief - [See Contracts - Topic 3944 ].

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - General - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - The Grams’ son died while at work - The Grams sued Cory’s employer in their personal capacity as beneficiaries of, and as administrators of, Cory’s estate, asserting that the employer was negligent in failing to provide insurance coverage under the employment contract or, alternatively, had breached the contract - The Grams sought to admit the evidence of Mrs. Grams and Cory’s girlfriend respecting Cory’s statements to them concerning his requests to the employer for insurance benefits - The employer sought to admit the evidence of its manager and an employee respecting Cory’s statements to them that he did not want benefits - The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench concluded that the hearsay evidence of Mrs. Grams and the girlfriend was not admissible under the "state of mind" or "present intentions" exception because it was being adduced not only to establish Cory’s state of mind, but also for the truth of the statements - However, the evidence of all four witnesses was necessary and sufficiently reliable to be admitted under the principled approach - See paragraphs 126 to 146.

Evidence - Topic 1631

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Statements of deceased persons - Statements of present intention - [See Evidence - Topic 1527 ].

Evidence - Topic 5202

Witnesses - Corroboration - General principles - When required - The Grams’ son (Cory) died while at work - The Grams sued Cory’s employer in their personal capacity as beneficiaries of, and as administrators of, Cory’s estate, asserting that the employer was negligent in failing to provide insurance coverage under the employment contract or, alternatively, had breached the contract - The Grams sought to admit the evidence of Mrs. Grams and Cory’s girlfriend respecting Cory’s statements to them concerning his requests to the employer for insurance benefits - The employer sought to admit, inter alia, the evidence of its manager respecting Cory’s statements to him that he did not want benefits - The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that the evidence of all witnesses constituted admissible hearsay - However, Mrs. Grams and the manager were interested parties and their evidence required corroboration to be accepted as determinative of the issues (Alberta Evidence Act, s. 11) - However, s. 11 did not prevent the court from hearing the evidence and assessing its weight - Further, corroboration did not end the matter, it simply left the case to be decided upon the best conclusion that could be formed independent of the Act - To some extent, Mrs. Grams evidence was corroborated by the girlfriend’s evidence - The manager’s evidence was corroborated by Cory’s failures to request benefits until the day before his death - See paragraphs 147 to 161.

Evidence - Topic 5203

Witnesses - Corroboration - General principles - What constitutes corroboration - [See Evidence - Topic 5202 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 1151

Contract of hiring (employment contract) - Implied terms - General - The Grams’ son (Cory) died while at work - The Grams sued Cory’s employer in their personal capacity as beneficiaries of, and as administrators of, Cory’s estate, asserting that the employer was negligent in failing to provide insurance coverage under the employment contract or, alternatively, had breached the contract - The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench accepted that it was a term of the contract, either express or implied, that Cory be provided with the opportunity to enrol in the group insurance policy - As a corollary to that term, the employer was required to provide Cory with sufficient information about the scope of the benefits available, the applicable time lines for applying, and the consequences of failing to do so within the appropriate time - The employer’s failure to do so breached its implied contractual obligation and the duty of care owed to Cory - Cory contributed to the damages that resulted from the breaches by not making inquiries - The court apportioned liability equally pursuant to s. 1(1) of the Contributory Negligence Act - See paragraphs 193 to 222.

Master and Servant - Topic 1931

Remuneration - Fringe benefits - General - The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench acknowledged that a general duty of care existed between an employer and an employee and that, where a benefits package was available for employees and the employer administered that package, the duty of care applied also to the administration thereof - See paragraph 28.

Master and Servant - Topic 1933

Remuneration - Fringe benefits - Insurance - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1151 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 5604

Liability of master to servant - General - Duty of care - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1931 and Master and Servant - Topic 1151 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 5661

Liability of master to servant - Negligence - General - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1151 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 5704

Liability of master to servant - Defences - Contributory negligence - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1151 ].

Practice - Topic 3712

Evidence - Sealed evidence - When available - [See Courts - Topic 1404 ].

Torts - Topic 38

Negligence - Standard of care - Particular persons and relationships - Employers (master and servant) - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1151 ].

Torts - Topic 6631

Defences - Contributory negligence - Particular cases - Failure to investigate - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1151 ].

Cases Noticed:

Perlett Estate et al. v. Riverside Health Care Facilities Inc. et al. (2005), 199 O.A.C. 260; 254 D.L.R.(4th) 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Tarailo v. Allied Chemical Canada Ltd. (1989), 68 O.R.(2d) 288 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Allison v. Noranda Inc. et al. (2001), 239 N.B.R.(2d) 211; 619 A.P.R. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Barclay v. Sooter Studios Ltd. et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 476; 2001 BCSC 476, refd to. [para. 20].

Pittman v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (1990), 88 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 279; 274 A.P.R. 279; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 320 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para.20].

Bryan v. Crown Life Insurance Co. et al., [2004] O.T.C. Uned. 829 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].

St. Louis Estate v. CIBC Mortgages Inc. et al., [2004] O.T.C. 533; 12 C.C.L.I.(4th) 135 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

Newbury v. Prudential Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (1996), 35 C.C.L.I.(2d) 61; 60 A.C.W.S.(3d) 451 (S.C.), affd. (1997), 94 B.C.A.C. 11; 152 W.A.C. 11; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 765 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Deschamp Estate et al. v. League Savings & Mortgage Co. et al. (2001), 192 N.S.R.(2d) 377; 599 A.P.R. 377; 27 C.C.L.I.(3d) 82 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024; [1977] 2 All E.R. 492 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 31].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 31].

Ryan v. Victoria (City) et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201; 234 N.R. 201; 117 B.C.A.C. 103; 191 W.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590, refd to. [para. 133].

Dodge Estate et al. v. Kaneff Homes Inc. et al., [2001] O.T.C. 198 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 143].

JDL Realty and Development Ltd.v. Galfour Development Corp. (2004), 368 A.R. 366; 2004 ABQB 656, refd to. [para. 149].

Duggan v. Duggan, [1939] 4 D.L.R. 744 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 150].

Taylor Estate, Re, [1923] 2 W.W.R. 180 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 150].

Mood Music Publishing Co. v. De Wolfe Ltd., [1976] 1 All E.R. 763 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

MacDonald et al. v. Canada Kelp Co. et al., [1973] 5 W.W.R. 689; 39 D.L.R.(3d) 617; 1973 CarswellBC 156 (C.A.), refd to. [para.172].

Ketch v. Richardson Greenshields of Canada Ltd. et al. (1997), 215 A.R. 88 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 173].

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; 115 D.L.R.(4th) 478; [1994] 4 W.W.R. 37, refd to. [para. 185].

Hansraj v. Ao et al. (2004), 354 A.R. 91; 329 W.A.C. 91; 2004 ABCA 223, refd to. [para. 185].

Bonne v. Irvine (1985), 31 Man.R.(2d) 81 (C.A.), dist. [para. 187].

Yao v. Exide Canada Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (1986), 38 Man.R.(2d) 303 (C.A.), dist. [para. 187].

Altius Centre Ltd. v. BMP Energy Systems Ltd. (1996), 191 A.R. 45 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 187].

Baillie v. Crown Life Insurance Co. (1998), 217 A.R. 253 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 187].

Andersen v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Ship & Dock Foreman, Local 514 (1996), 25 B.C.L.R.(3d) 376 (S.C.), dist. [para. 187].

Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 197].

Ryan v. Victoria (City) et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201; 234 N.R. 201; 117 B.C.A.C. 103; 191 W.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 208].

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 212].

Lloyd v. Imperial Parking Ltd. (1996), 192 A.R. 190 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 214].

Leacock v. Whalen, Beliveau & Associes Inc. et al. (1996), 22 C.C.E.L.(2d) 249 (S.C.), dist. [para. 214].

Bruce v. Waterloo Swim Club (1990), 73 O.R.(2d) 709 (H.C.), dist. [para. 214].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 257, refd to. [para. 224].

R. v. Toronto Star Newspaper Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 188; 335 N.R. 201; 200 O.A.C. 348; 2005 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 227].

Innovative Health Group Inc. v. Calgary Health Region (2006), 384 A.R. 76; 367 W.A.C. 76; 2006 ABCA 7, refd to. [para. 228].

Statutes Noticed:

Alberta Evidence Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-18, sect. 11 [para. 147].

Authors and Works Noticed:

D'Andrea, James A., Cory, David J., Forester, Heather I., and Redmond, Illness and Disability in the Workplace (Looseleaf Ed.), p. 5:600 [para. 18].

England, Geoffrey, Wood, Roderick and Christie, Innis, Employment Law in Canada (4th Ed. 2005), generally [para. 213].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryan, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), para. 11.183 [para. 171].

Counsel:

John R. Carpenter (Chivers Carpenter), for the plaintiffs;

James H. Odishaw (Odishaw & Odishaw), for the defendant, Maple Leaf Metal Industries Ltd.

Gallant, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, heard this action on October 11-14, 2005, and delivered the following decision on February 17, 2006.