Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. v. University of Waterloo et al., (2006) 200 Man.R.(2d) 138 (QB)

• Judge: MacInnes, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: February 07, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2006), 200 Man.R.(2d) 138 (QB);2006 MBQB 33

MPIC v. Waterloo Univ. (2006), 200 Man.R.(2d) 138 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.026

The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (plaintiff) v. University of Waterloo and Allyson K. Graham (defendants)

(CI 97-01-02556; 2006 MBQB 33)

Indexed As: Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. v. University of Waterloo et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

MacInnes, J.

February 7, 2006.

Summary:

The defendant, Graham, was driving a vehicle owned by the defendant, University of Waterloo, when she struck a child in Cranberry Portage, Manitoba. The child suffered serious injuries. Pursuant to the Personal Injury Protection Plan (PIPP) compensation under Part 2 of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (MPIC) paid compensation for the child in the sum of $776,441.97 and had reserved $4,306,070.18. MPIC had a right of subrogation under s. 77 of the Act and was entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the defendants. By way of a stated case, the parties sought the court's opinion on the following questions: (a) what was the nature of an action brought under s. 77 of the Act and what rights of recovery flowed therefrom to MPIC; and (b) was MPIC's right of subrogation in s. 77(1) subject to common law tort principles such as remoteness, foreseeability and causation, such that the amounts sought by MPIC from the defendants had to be proven and justified according to those principles and had to constitute PIPP compensation, according to the terms of s. 77(1).

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that: (1) the nature of an action brought under s. 77 was one in tort brought by MPIC as subrogee of the victim recipient of compensation. MPIC acquired no more or less than that person had. Therefore, MPIC's right was to bring an action in tort to recover up to the amount of the compensation which it had paid or was obligated to pay; and (2) MPIC's right of subrogation in s. 77(1) was subject to common law tort principles such as remoteness, foreseeability and causation, such that the amounts sought by MPIC from the defendants had to be proven and justified according to those principles and had to constitute PIPP compensation, according to the terms of s. 77(1).

Insurance - Topic 5241

Automobile insurance (compulsory government schemes) - Subrogation or indemnity - General - [See Insurance - Topic 5244 ].

Insurance - Topic 5244

Automobile insurance (compulsory government schemes) - Subrogation or indemnity - Conditions precedent - Section 77(1) of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act subrogated the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (MPIC) to the rights of an injured person and allowed MPIC to recover the amount of Personal Injury Protection Plan (PIPP) compensation which it had paid to the injured person from any nonresident of Manitoba, to the extent that the nonresident was responsible for the accident - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the nature of an action brought under s. 77 was one in tort brought by MPIC as subrogee of the victim recipient of compensation - MPIC acquired no more or less than that person had - Therefore, MPIC's right was to bring an action in tort to recover up to the amount of the compensation which it had paid or was obligated to pay - The court also held that MPIC's right of subrogation in s. 77(1) was subject to common law tort principles such as remoteness, foreseeability and causation, such that the amounts sought by MPIC from the defendants had to be proven and justified according to those principles and had to constitute PIPP compensation, according to the terms of s. 77(1).

Cases Noticed:

McMillan v. Thompson (Rural Municipality) (1997), 115 Man.R.(2d) 2; 139 W.A.C. 2 (C.A.), consd. [para. 11].

Guiboche v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. (1998), 131 Man.R.(2d) 99; 187 W.A.C. 99 (C.A.), consd. [para. 15].

Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. v. Puddicombe (2003), 180 Man.R.(2d) 133; 310 W.A.C. 133; 2003 MBCA 141, consd. [para. 17].

Schaffer v. McPherson et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. F76; 1 C.C.L.I.(3d) 88 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. v. From (R.W.) Ltd. and Juenke (1981), 12 Man.R.(2d) 27 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. P-125, C.C.S.M., c. P-125, sect. 72, sect. 73, sect. 75(1), sect. 76, sect. 77(1) [para. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Craig, and Menezes, Julio, Insurance Law in Canada (2nd. Ed. 1991), p. 158, para. 8:1:16 [para. 31].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 301 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Keith T. Addison, for the plaintiff;

Charles A. Sherbo and Lana J. Foley, for the defendants.

This matter was heard before MacInnes, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following decision on February 7, 2006.