Raymond v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., 2012 MBQB 201

• Judge: Cameron, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: July 06, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2012 MBQB 201;(2012), 281 Man.R.(2d) 150 (QB)

Raymond v. MPIC (2012), 281 Man.R.(2d) 150 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.030

Marc Wayne Raymond (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (defendant/appellant)

(CI 98-01-09028; 2012 MBQB 201)

Indexed As: Raymond v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Cameron, J.

July 6, 2012.

Summary:

In 1996, in British Columbia, Raymond, while driving a vehicle that he believed was registered with and insured by Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (MPIC), caused a collision with another vehicle. MPIC denied coverage. Raymond sued MPIC, seeking indemnity, in 1998. In 2010, MPIC filed a motion to dismiss the action against it for delay. A Master denied the motion without reasons. MPIC appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 1127

Masters - Appeals from - Standard of review - The defendant moved to dismiss the action for delay - A Master denied the motion without reasons - The defendant appealed - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench discussed the standard of review - The appeal from the Master's order was a fresh hearing - The judge, on appeal, was entitled to exercise his or her discretion independently, notwithstanding that the decision appealed from was based on discretion - However, the court ought to consider the reasons set out by the Master in order to ensure that the process before the Master was not a "meaningless exercise" - That "consideration" did not equate to the application of a standard of deference - Further, where there were no reasons, there was very little that the court could give consideration to - See paragraphs 21 to 23.

Practice - Topic 5360

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Delay - In 1996, in British Columbia, Raymond, while driving a vehicle that he believed was registered with and insured by Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (MPIC), caused a collision with another vehicle - MPIC denied coverage on the basis that the vehicle should have been registered in B.C. - Raymond sued MPIC, seeking indemnity, in 1998 - The main issue between the parties was whether Raymond was exempt from registering the vehicle under the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act because, although the vehicle was situated in B.C., Raymond resided in Manitoba - In April 2010, a claim against Raymond in B.C. was settled - Raymond was to pay the injured party $100,000 - In October 2010, MPIC's motion to dismiss the action against it for delay was denied - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed MPIC's appeal - Raymond's explanation for the delay was reasonable - It was reasonable to wait for the B.C. action to be settled before proceeding with the indemnity action - The action was not complex or fact-dependent, but involved contract and statutory interpretation issues - There was no specific prejudice to MPIC - As to inherent prejudice, MPIC was relatively sophisticated - Most of the evidence was documentary - Further, there had been lengthy periods where MPIC took no action - MPIC's failure to act negated the allegation of inherent prejudice - See paragraphs 31 to 40.

Practice - Topic 5360.1

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Excuse for delay - [See Practice - Topic 5360 ].

Practice - Topic 5362

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Prejudice to defendant - [See Practice - Topic 5360 ].

Practice - Topic 5362.1

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Inference of prejudice (incl. rebuttal of) - [See Practice - Topic 5360 ].

Practice - Topic 8804

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding discretionary orders - [See Courts - Topic 1127 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hughes and Hughes v. Simpson-Sears Ltd. (1988), 54 Man.R.(2d) 5; 52 D.L.R.(4th) 553 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Biss v. Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Area Health Authority (Teaching), [1978] 2 All E.R. 125 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Stechkewich v. Freeth (1991), 77 Man.R.(2d) 76 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

McDiarmid Lumber Ltd. v. Gallant (2008), 230 Man.R.(2d) 11; 2008 MBQB 110, refd to. [para. 8].

White v. Buchanan (Trustee of) - see White v. Collins.

White v. Collins, [1999] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 159; 92 A.C.W.S.(3d) 973 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 8].

ABI Biotechnology Inc. v. Apotex Inc. et al. (2008), 231 Man.R.(2d) 259; 437 W.A.C. 259; 2008 MBCA 146, affing. (2008), 229 Man.R.(2d) 248; 2008 MBQB 146, refd to. [para. 10].

Benson v. Thompson, [2005] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 38; 139 A.C.W.S.(3d) 847; 2005 MBQB 96, refd to. [para. 10].

Law Society of Manitoba v. Eadie (1988), 54 Man.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Dubois v. Manitoba Lotteries Corp. et al. (2009), 251 Man.R.(2d) 5; 478 W.A.C. 5; 2009 MBCA 108, refd to. [para. 18].

Olson v. Argus Industrial Supply Ltd., [1981] M.J. No. 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Jacobson Estate v. Freed et al. (1994), 97 Man.R.(2d) 197; 79 W.A.C. 197 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Mauer v. McDougall et al. (2001), 153 Man.R.(2d) 259; 238 W.A.C. 259; 2001 MBCA 2, refd to. [para. 28].

Torok v. Shnider et al. (1994), 95 Man.R.(2d) 284; 70 W.A.C. 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Counsel:

Amanda E. Verhaeghe, for the plaintiff;

Trevor M. Brown, for the defendant.

This appeal was heard by Cameron, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on July 6, 2012.