Love v. Love, (2011) 373 Sask.R. 268 (QB)

• Judge: Gunn, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 02, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2011), 373 Sask.R. 268 (QB);2011 SKQB 176

Love v. Love (2011), 373 Sask.R. 268 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.051

In The Matter of Insurance Proceeds payable upon the death of Dennis Neil Love under Group Life Insurance Policy No. 136299 issued by the Great-West Life Assurance Company to Crown Investments Corporation of Saskatchewan

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

(2010 Q.B.G. No. 1686; 2011 SKQB 176)

Indexed As: Love v. Love

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Gunn, J.

May 2, 2011.

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 declared that the ex-wife was the designated beneficiary of the insurance proceeds in issue.

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 designated beneficiary - Love died intestate - The ex-wife and one of Love's four sons claimed the insurance proceeds - The son claimed that an email sent by Love to his employer constituted a declaration of change of beneficiary - In the email, Love said 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 - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the email on its own was not a direction within the meaning of the Saskatchewan Insurance Act - There was no mention of group life insurance - The word "etc." was not clear - The "son" was not named - 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 was not applicable because there was a juristic reason for the enrichment and no corresponding deprivation - Further, rectification was inapplicable as there was no mutual mistake.

Deeds and Documents - Topic 5057

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

Restitution - Topic 64

Unjust enrichment - General - Juristic reason for enrichment - [See Insurance - Topic 7530 ].

Cases Noticed:

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Taylor et al. (2008), 322 Sask.R. 153; 2008 SKQB 403, refd to. [para. 29].

Buckmeyer Estate, Re (2008), 316 Sask.R. 192; 2008 SKQB 141, refd to. [para. 30].

McKenna, Re (1926), 30 O.W.N. 178 (H.C.), affd. (1926), 30 O.W.N. 296 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Britton v. Klippenstein Estate et al. (2004), 248 Sask.R. 182; 2004 SKQB 165, affd. (2005), 262 Sask.R. 194; 347 W.A.C. 194; 2005 SKCA 22, refd to. [para. 43].

Conway Estate, Re, [2006] O.T.C. 44; 25 R.F.L.(6th) 106 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

Ferguson Estate v. Mew et al. (2009), 250 O.A.C. 146; 310 D.L.R.(4th) 21; 2009 ONCA 403, refd to. [para. 48].

Richardson Estate v. Mew - see Ferguson Estate v. Mew et al.

Richardson Estate, Re, [2008] O.T.C. Uned. P86; 300 D.L.R.(4th) 503; 64 R.F.L.(6th) 97 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada (3rd Ed. 2009), pp. 325, 326, paras. 6.302, 6.303 [para. 4].

Norwood, David, and Weir, John P., Life Insurance in Canada (3rd Ed. 2002), p. 298 [para. 37].

Counsel:

Paul G. Wagner, for the applicant;

W. Timothy Stodalka, for the respondent.

This application was heard before Gunn, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on May 2, 2011.