Marche et al. v. Halifax Insurance Co., (2005) 330 N.R. 115 (SCC)
Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish and Charron, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | February 24, 2005 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2005), 330 N.R. 115 (SCC);2005 SCC 6;230 NSR (2d) 333;[2005] ACS no 7;[2005] 1 SCR 47;[2005] RRA 1;[2005] ILR 4383;330 NR 115;EYB 2005-85987;248 DLR (4th) 577;JE 2005-432;729 APR 333;[2005] CarswellNS 77;18 CCLI (4th) 1;[2005] SCJ No 7 (QL);137 ACWS (3d) 415 |
Marche v. Halifax Ins. (2005), 330 N.R. 115 (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: [2005] N.R. TBEd. FE.047
Theresa Marche and Gary Fitzgerald (appellants) v. The Halifax Insurance Company (respondent)
(29754; 2005 SCC 6; 2005 CSC 6)
Indexed As: Marche et al. v. Halifax Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish and Charron, JJ.
February 24, 2005.
Summary:
The plaintiffs did not disclose to their insurer that their rental property was vacant for three months (the first vacancy). Thereafter, the male plaintiff's brother became a tenant, but the plaintiffs took steps to remove him after he failed to pay rent (shut off water and power). Shortly after the brother vacated, but before he removed his personal property, the property was destroyed by fire. The insurer, relying on the first vacancy, denied coverage for nondisclosure of a material risk contrary to statutory condition 4 of the policy. The plaintiffs sued the insurer to enforce their claim for coverage.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2002), 202 N.S.R.(2d) 345; 632 A.P.R. 345, allowed the action. The court, without determining whether the plaintiffs breached statutory condition 4, exercised its discretion under s. 171 of the Insurance Act to grant the plaintiffs relief from the nondisclosure. Since there was no causal link between the vacancy and the fire, it was unjust and unreasonable to permit the insurer to deny coverage based on the prior unrelated nondisclosure. The insurer appealed.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 214 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 671 A.P.R. 1, allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs' action. The court held that s. 171 did not apply to statutory conditions, but only to optional conditions in the policy. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada (Bastarache and Charron, JJ., dissenting), allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial judge. The court held that s. 171 applied to statutory conditions. The court stated that where the application of statutory conditions produced unjust or unreasonable results, the court could grant relief under s. 171.
Insurance - Topic 5587
Fire insurance - The risks or perils - Material misdescriptions and changes - Vacancy or failure to occupy - The plaintiffs did not disclose to their insurer that their rental property was vacant for three months (the first vacancy) - Thereafter, the male plaintiff's brother became a tenant, but the plaintiffs took steps to remove him after he failed to pay rent (shut off water and power) - Shortly after the brother vacated, but before he removed his personal property, the property was destroyed by fire - The insurer, relying on the first vacancy, denied coverage for nondisclosure of a material risk (that property vacant) contrary to statutory condition 4 of the policy - The trial judge held that the insurer was liable for coverage - The judge, without determining whether the plaintiffs breached statutory condition 4 of the policy, exercised his discretion under s. 171 of the Insurance Act to grant the plaintiffs relief from the nondisclosure - Since there was no causal link between the vacancy and the fire, it was unjust and unreasonable to permit the insurer to deny coverage based on the prior unrelated nondisclosure - The court held that the discretionary relief under s. 171 was not limited to contractual provisions inserted by an insurer, but applied equally to statutory conditions - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial decision, holding that s. 171 applied to statutory conditions - The court stated that where the application of a statutory condition produced an unjust or unreasonable result, the court could grant relief.
Insurance - Topic 5606
Fire insurance - Exclusions - Requirement that exclusion be just and reasonable - [See Insurance - Topic 5587 ].
Insurance - Topic 5606
Fire insurance - Exclusions - Requirement that exclusion be just and reasonable - Section 171(b) of the Insurance Act (N.S.) provided that "Where a contract ... contains any stipulation, condition or warranty that is or may be material to the risk including, but not restricted to, a provision in respect to the use, condition, location or maintenance of the insured property, the exclusion, stipulation, condition or warranty shall not be binding upon the insured if it is held to be unjust or unreasonable by the court before which a question relating thereto is tried." - The Supreme Court of Canada held s. 171 applied not only to delete conditions that were unreasonable on their face (should there be any), but also to relieve against the results of applying conditions that, in the particular circumstances of the case, were unreasonable in their application or draconian in their consequences - The court held that s. 171 applied not only to contractual conditions, but to statutory conditions that were unreasonable or unjust in their application - See paragraphs 7 to 45.
Insurance - Topic 5606
Fire insurance - Exclusions - Requirement that exclusion be just and reasonable - Section 171(b) of the Insurance Act (N.S.) provided that "Where a contract ... contains any stipulation, condition or warranty that is or may be material to the risk including, but not restricted to, a provision in respect to the use, condition, location or maintenance of the insured property, the exclusion, stipulation, condition or warranty shall not be binding upon the insured if it is held to be unjust or unreasonable by the court before which a question relating thereto is tried." - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 171 applied to statutory conditions - Section 171 had a remedial purpose and should be given a broad interpretation - The actual wording of s. 171 was broad enough to cover statutory conditions - The history of the provision demonstrated that it was intended to apply to statutory conditions - The jurisprudence supported this conclusion - See paragraphs 13 to 45.
Statutes - Topic 8506
Remedial statutes - General principles - Interpretation - [See third Insurance - Topic 5606 ].
Cases Noticed:
Elance Steel Fabricating Co. v. Falk Bros. Industries Ltd. and Canadian Surety Co., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 778; 99 N.R. 228; 80 Sask.R. 22, refd to. [paras. 13, 110].
Krupich v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (1985), 63 A.R. 30; 16 C.C.L.I. 18 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 28, 114].
528852 Ontario Inc. et al. v. Royal Insurance Co., [2000] O.T.C. 809; 51 O.R.(3d) 470 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 28, 113].
Nahayowski v. Pearl Assurance Co. (1964), 45 W.W.R.(N.S.) 662 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [paras. 29, 113].
Kekarainen v. Oreland Movers Ltd. and Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [1981] 3 W.W.R. 534; 8 Man.R.(2d) 23 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].
Poast v. Royal Insurance Co. of Canada (1983), 21 Man.R.(2d) 67 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].
Curtis's and Harvey (Can.) Ltd. v. North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. (1920), 55 D.L.R. 95 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 31, 78].
Arcand v. Grenville Patron Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (1923), 25 O.W.N. 175 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 40].
Henwood v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, [1967] S.C.R. 720, refd to. [para. 42].
Stubart Investments Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536; 53 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 54].
Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 54].
Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission - see Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al.
Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 54].
R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 54].
R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867; 275 N.R. 201; 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 618 A.P.R. 304; 2001 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 54].
Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268; 2002 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 54].
Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 54].
Canadian Pacific Air Lines Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Air Line Pilots Association et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 724; 160 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 60].
2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 67].
Brossard (Town) v. Commission des droits de la personne du Québec and Laurin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 279; 88 N.R. 321; 18 Q.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 69].
Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Daoust (C.) et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 217; 316 N.R. 203; 2004 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Goulis (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].
R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 70].
R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 62 N.R. 50; 66 A.R. 202, refd to. [para. 72].
City of London Fire Insurance Co. v. Smith (1888), 15 S.C.R. 69, refd to. [para. 79].
Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 95].
Gravel v. St. Leonard (City), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 660; 17 N.R. 486, refd to. [para. 99].
Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 101].
Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd. - see Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al.
R. v. Hafey et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 106; 57 N.R. 321; 67 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 155 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 102].
Skoke-Graham v. R. - see R. v. Hafey et al.
R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 103].
Hirst v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada (1978), 8 B.C.L.R. 396 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 113].
Hirst v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada (1979), 70 B.C.L.R.(2d) 361 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].
Statutes Noticed:
Insurance Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 231, sect. 171 [para. 7].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Baer, Marvin G., and Rendall, James A., Cases on the Canadian Law of Insurance (6th Ed. 2000), pp. 27, 28, 74, 75 [para. 48]; 419 [para. 122]; 642 [para. 112].
Boivin, Denis, Insurance Law (2004), pp. 1 [para. 47]; 59, 60 [para. 86].
Brown, Craig, and Menezes, Julio, Insurance Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 178, 188 [para. 105]; 190 [para. 32].
Brown, Craig, Insurance Law in Canada (1999 Looseleaf Ed.) (2004 Looseleaf Update) (Release 3), vol. 1, pp. 1-1 [para. 47]; 20-8, 20-9 [para. 81].
Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), generally [para. 54]; pp. 308 [para. 72]; 421, 423 [para. 101].
Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 54].
Graham, Randal N., Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice (2001), generally [para. 54].
Ivamy, E.R. Hardy, General Principles of Insurance Law (6th Ed. 1993), pp. 154, 155 [para. 118]; 174 [para. 117].
Rendall, James A., Annotation to Krupich v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America (1985), 16 C.C.L.I. 18, pp. 20 [paras. 31, 85, 87]; 21 [para. 114].
Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), generally [para. 54]; pp. 20 [para. 63]; 21 [para. 59]; 41 [para. 15]; 158 [para. 109]; 162 to 166 [para. 95]; 173 [para. 68]; 218 [para. 98]; 259 [para. 71]; 260, 261, 262 [para. 66]; 471, 472 [para. 99]; 473 [para. 101]; 477 [para. 103].
Counsel:
Derrick J. Kimball, Nash T. Brogan and H. Heidi Foshay Kimball, for the appellants;
Scott C. Norton, Q.C., and Daniela Bassan, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Kimball Brogan, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, for the appellants;
Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on November 2, 2004, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on February 24, 2005, when the following opinions were filed:
McLachlin, C.J.C. (Major, Binnie, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 45;
Bastarache, J., dissenting (Charron, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 46 to 123.
To continue reading
Request your trial