Love v. Love, (2013) 417 Sask.R. 5 (CA)

• Judge: Richards, Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: October 10, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2013), 417 Sask.R. 5 (CA);2013 SKCA 31

Love v. Love (2013), 417 Sask.R. 5 (CA);

    580 W.A.C. 5

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.001

Thomas Neil Love (respondent/appellant) v. Lori Marie Love (applicant/respondent)

(CACV2110; 2013 SKCA 31)

Indexed As: Love v. Love

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A.

March 19, 2013.

Summary:

Love died. His ex-wife applied for a declaration that she was the designated beneficiary under a group life insurance policy. One of Love's sons disputed entitlement to the insurance proceeds.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 373 Sask.R. 168, declared that the ex-wife was the designated beneficiary of the insurance proceeds in issue. The son appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Deeds and Documents - Topic 5058

Rectification - When available - Mistake - Unilateral - [See Insurance - Topic 7530 ].

Insurance - Topic 7530

Life insurance - Group - Beneficiaries - Designation of (incl. alteration or revocation) - Love was insured under a group life policy - His ex-wife was the designated beneficiary - Love died intestate - The ex-wife and one of Love's four sons claimed the insurance proceeds - Love had sent an email to his employer stating that he wanted to change the beneficiary on his "pension, etc." from his former wife to his son and requested the necessary paper work - After Love died, an unsigned partially completed change of beneficiary form remained in his files - An applications judge held that the partially completed form was not a declaration revoking the ex-wife's designation - Nor was the couples' separation agreement, where it made no mention of the life insurance - Unjust enrichment and rectification were found to be inapplicable - The son appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court held that this was not a circumstance where a constructive trust could be properly imposed - However, the doctrine of rectification should be brought into play and used to repair the errors in the form which Love failed to complete properly (i.e., to rectify the unilateral mistake).

Trusts - Topic 2346

Constructive trusts - Basis for imposition - Unjust enrichment - [See Insurance - Topic 7530 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Khan (A.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353, refd to. [para. 22].

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. 22].

R. v. Khelawon (R.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787; 355 N.R. 267; 220 O.A.C. 338; 2006 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 22].

Buckmeyer Estate, Re (2008), 316 Sask.R. 192; 2008 SKQB 141, refd to. [para. 36].

Kerr v. Baranow, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269; 411 N.R. 200; 300 B.C.A.C. 1; 509 W.A.C. 1; 274 O.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 41].

Chanowski v. Bauer et al. (2010), 258 Man.R.(2d) 244; 499 W.A.C. 244; 2010 MBCA 96, refd to. [para. 42].

Ferguson Estate v. Mew et al. (2009), 250 O.A.C. 146; 310 D.L.R.(4th) 21; 2009 ONCA 403, refd to. [para. 42].

Martindale Estate v. Martindale et al., [1999] 1 W.W.R. 778; 109 B.C.A.C. 97; 177 W.A.C. 97; 162 D.L.R.(4th) 475 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Roberts v. Martindale - see Martindale Estate v. Martindale et al.

Hemmerling Estate v. Hemmerling et al. (2000), 275 A.R. 171; 2000 ABQB 808, refd to. [para. 45].

Holowa Estate, Re (2011), 506 A.R. 260; 330 D.L.R.(4th) 693; 2011 ABQB 23, refd to. [para. 45].

Ladner v. Wolfson et al. (2011), 310 B.C.A.C. 225; 526 W.A.C. 225; 341 D.L.R.(4th) 299; 2011 BCCA 370, refd to. [para. 45].

Soulos v. Korkontzilas et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217; 212 N.R. 1; 100 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 46].

Amcor Packaging Canada Inc., Re, [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 6168; 2012 ONSC 6168, refd to. [para. 52].

Kraft Canada Inc. v. Pitsadiotis, [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 517 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].

Cockell v. Cockell, [1944] 3 W.W.R. 328 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Sharom v. Sharom Estate (1992), 8 C.C.L.I.(2d) 14 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 58].

Anderson v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. (2009), 81 C.C.L.I.(4th) 43, refd to. [para. 58].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Contract in Canada (6th Ed. 2011), p. 780 [para. 52].

MacGillivray, Insurance Law (11th Ed. 2008), p. 316 [para. 51].

Norwood, David and Weir, John, Norwood on Life Insurance Law in Canada (3rd Ed. 2002), p. 212 [para. 54].

Counsel:

W. Timothy Stodalka, for the appellant;

Paul Wagner and Lindsay Wacholtz, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 10, 2012, before Richards, Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Richards, J.A., on March 19, 2013.