Optimum Insurance Company Inc. v. Donovan

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Judge: Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Larlee and Quigg, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2009 NBCA 6
• Citation: 2009 NBCA 6,(2008), 340 N.B.R.(2d) 45 (CA),340 NBR (2d) 45,[2008] CarswellNB 644,[2009] NBJ No 18 (QL),340 N.B.R.(2d) 45,[2009] N.B.J. No 18 (QL),340 NBR(2d) 45,(2008), 340 NBR(2d) 45 (CA)
• Date: 29 October 2008

Optimum Ins. v. Donovan (2008), 340 N.B.R.(2d) 45 (CA);

    340 R.N.-B.(2e) 45; 871 A.P.R. 45

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2009] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.008

Renvoi temp.: [2009] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.008

Optimum Insurance Company Inc. (appellant) v. Brandon Joseph Donovan (respondent)

(63-08-CA; 2009 NBCA 6)

Indexed As: Optimum Insurance Co. v. Donovan

Répertorié: Optimum Insurance Co. v. Donovan

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Larlee and Quigg, JJ.A.

October 29, 2008.

Summary:

Résumé:

The family of the deceased sued the insured for negligently causing the death. The insured wanted his insurer to defend him. The insurer refused, on the basis of the "criminal act" exclusion in the insurance policy. The insured third partied the insurer, seeking a declaration that the insurer had a duty to defend. The parties moved under rule 23 of the Rules of Court (N.B.) for a determination of the question.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, ruled that the insurer had a duty to defend. The insurer appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Insurance - Topic 725

Insurers - Duties - Duty to defend - The parties, an insured and his home insurer, moved under rule 23 of the Rules of Court (N.B.) for a determination of whether the insurer had a duty to defend the insured, who had been sued for negligence after he unintentionally shot and killed a guest in his home - The insurer argued that the "criminal act" exclusion in the insurance policy operated to relieve it of its duty to defend - The insurer sought to present affidavit evidence purporting to establish that the insured admitted at discovery to pleading guilty to a charge of manslaughter in connection with the guest's shooting death - The insurer conceded that the shooting death was unintentional and acknowledged that, but for the "criminal act" exclusion, it had a duty to defend - The motion judge excluded the proposed affidavit evidence on the basis of the "pleadings rule" and went on to hold that the insurer had a duty to defend since the suit against the insured was in negligence only and no basis for the application of the "criminal act" exclusion emerged from the record - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal upheld the decision while indicating that resort to the "pleadings rule" was unnecessary since rule 23.02 operated to exclude the proposed affidavit evidence - In addition, even if the court had jurisdiction under rule 23.02 to grant leave to admit the proposed affidavit evidence, such leave could only be granted on a showing of exceptional circumstances, which were not present here - Finally, the motion judge did not commit reversible error in his application of the "pleadings rule" - See paragraphs 1 to 42.

Practice - Topic 3130

Applications and motions - Motions - Form and content - The parties, an insured and his home insurer, moved under rule 23 of the Rules of Court (N.B.) for a determination of whether the insurer had a duty to defend the insured, who had been sued for negligence after he unintentionally shot and killed a guest in his home - The Notices of Motion did not, as required by rule 37.03(b), specifically indicate which clause of rule 23.01(1) was relied on - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal reluctantly agreed to overlook this failure where (1) the parties had been unwilling to urge greater procedural intolerance, and (2) it was possible, albeit thanks to some significant leaps of deductive logic, to identify which clause of Rule 23.01(1) was relied on - See paragraphs 28 and 29.

Practice - Topic 5260

Trials - General - Trial of preliminary issues - General principles (incl. when available or appropriate) - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held as follows: "Judgment is available as a remedy under Rule 23.01(1)(c) [of the Rules of Court (N.B.)], but not under Rules 23.01(1)(a) and (b) unless the motion is converted into a motion for judgment under Rule 37.10(a)" - See paragraph 30.

Practice - Topic 5262.2

Trials - General - Trial of preliminary issues - Admissibility of evidence - [See Insurance - Topic 725 ].

Assurance - Cote 725

Assureurs - Obligations - Obligation de présenter une défense - [Voir Insurance - Topic 725 ].

Procédure - Cote 3130

Requêtes et motions - Motions - Forme et contenu - [Voir Practice - Topic 3130 ].

Procédure - Cote 5260

Procès - Généralités - Instruction de questions préjudicielles - Principes généraux (y compris applicabilité) - [Voir Practice - Topic 5260 ].

Procédure - Cote 5262.2

Procès - Généralités - Instruction de questions préjudicielles - Recevabilité de la preuve - [Voir Practice - Topic 5262.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

Stout v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. (1962), 307 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.), refd to. [para. 5].

Fermes Dionne ltée/Dionne Farms Ltd. v. Fermes Gervais ltée et al. (2002), 255 N.B.R.(2d) 6; 668 A.P.R. 6; 2002 NBCA 98, consd. [para. 22].

Gamblin v. O'Donnell et al. (2001), 244 N.B.R.(2d) 102; 634 A.P.R. 102; 2001 NBCA 109, refd to. [para. 24].

Norris v. Lloyd's of London (1998), 205 N.B.R.(2d) 29; 523 A.P.R. 29 (C.A.), consd. [para. 28].

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé (1999), 217 N.B.R.(2d) 230; 555 A.P.R. 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Waugh et al. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al. (2000), 224 N.B.R.(2d) 391; 574 A.P.R. 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Smith v. Agnew (2001), 240 N.B.R.(2d) 63; 622 A.P.R. 63; 2001 NBCA 83, refd to. [para. 28].

Boisvert v. LeBlanc (2005), 294 N.B.R.(2d) 325; 765 A.P.R. 325; 2005 NBCA 115, refd to. [para. 28].

Dugas (Bankrupt), Re (2004), 268 N.B.R.(2d) 290; 704 A.P.R. 290; 2004 NBCA 15, refd to. [para. 29].

Newman v. Tibbetts (2005), 283 N.B.R.(2d) 63; 740 A.P.R. 63; 2005 NBCA 37, refd to. [para. 29].

Hogan v. Doiron et al. (2001), 243 N.B.R.(2d) 263; 631 A.P.R. 263; 2001 NBCA 97, refd to. [para. 31].

Thorne v. Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Co. of Canada (2003), 261 N.B.R.(2d) 119; 685 A.P.R. 119; 2003 NBCA 61, refd to. [para. 34].

Opron Maritimes Construction Ltd. v. Canadian Indemnity Co. (1986), 73 N.B.R.(2d) 389; 184 A.P.R. 389 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Nichols v. American Home Assurance Co. et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 801; 107 N.R. 321; 39 O.A.C. 63, refd to. [para. 34].

Monenco Ltd. et al. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 699; 274 N.R. 84; 155 B.C.A.C. 161; 254 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 49, refd to. [para. 34].

Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd's of London v. Scalera - see Scalera v. Lloyd's of London.

Scalera v. Lloyd's of London, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 551; 253 N.R. 1; 135 B.C.A.C. 161; 221 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 34].

Conservation Council of New Brunswick Inc. et al. v. Encon Group Inc. et al. (2006), 299 N.B.R.(2d) 354; 778 A.P.R. 354; 2006 NBCA 51, consd. [para. 34].

Eichmanis v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. - see R.E. et al. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. et al.

R.E. et al. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. et al. (2007), 221 O.A.C. 1; 84 O.R.(3d) 668; 2007 ONCA 92, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. J.F. (2008), 380 N.R. 325; 242 O.A.C. 338; 2008 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 39].

Canadian National Railway Co. et al. v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (2008), 381 N.R. 332; 243 O.A.C. 340; 2008 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Gosset, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 76; 157 N.R. 195; 57 Q.A.C. 130, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Finlay, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 103; 156 N.R. 374; 113 Sask.R. 241; 52 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 23.01(1), rule 23.02 [para. 17]; rule 37.03 [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hilliker, Gordon, Liability Insurance Law in Canada (3rd Ed. 2001), pp. 76 to 79 [para. 7].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Eric LeDrew, for the appellant;

Jillian E. Jordon, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 29, 2008, by Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Larlee and Quigg, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal delivered its decision orally on October 29, 2008, with written reasons in both official languages delivered on January 29, 2009, by Drapeau, C.J.N.B.