Scalera v. Lloyd's of London, (2000) 135 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 03, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 135 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC);2000 SCC 24;253 NR 1;96 ACWS (3d) 479;50 CCLT (2d) 1;AZ-50075405;[2000] 1 SCR 551;[2000] 5 WWR 465;[2000] SCJ No 26 (QL);JE 2000-935;185 DLR (4th) 1;75 BCLR (3d) 1;135 BCAC 161;18 CCLI (3d) 1;[2000] ACS no 26;[2000] CarswellBC 885;221 WAC 161

Scalera v. Lloyd's (2000), 135 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC);

    221 W.A.C. 161

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: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.009

Vincent Scalera (appellant) v. M.J. Oppenheim in his capacity as Attorney in Canada for The Non-Marine Underwriters, Members of Lloyd's of London (respondent)

(26695; 2000 SCC 24)

Indexed As: Scalera v. Lloyd's of London

Supreme Court of Canada

L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

May 3, 2000.

Summary:

A woman commenced separate sexual assault actions for damages against two bus drivers (Scalera and Sansalone), each covered under homeowner's insurance pol­icies. At issue was the insurers' duty to defend the actions. One policy (Lloyd's) excluded "bodily injury ... caused by an intentional or criminal act". The other policy (Wawanesa) excluded "bodily injury ... caused intentionally". A Chambers judge, in separate decisions, ruled that Lloyd's and Wawanesa had a duty to defend the actions. The insurers appealed. The appeals were heard together.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 106 B.C.A.C. 268; 172 W.A.C. 268, Finch, J.A., dissenting, allowed both appeals. Both policies excluded any possibility of coverage. Accordingly, neither insurer was required to defend. The insured (Scalera) appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. There was no duty to defend where coverage for sexual assault was excluded under the policy.

Insurance - Topic 725

Insurers - Duties - Duty to defend - An insurance policy provided that "We will defend, by counsel of our choice, any suit against you alleging bodily injury or prop­erty damage and seeking compensatory damages, even if it is groundless, false or fraudulent" - The homeowner's insurance policy excluded coverage for "bodily injury ... caused by an intentional or cri­minal act" - The insured was sued for damages for sexual assault - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insurer had no duty to defend - Where sexual assault was alleged, courts would infer that harm was intended for the purpose of construing exemptions of insurance coverage for intentional injury - Accordingly, "either the [victim] con­sented, in which case no action lies, or she did not consent and the defendant is deemed to have intended to injure her. In neither case does the policy provide cover­age." - See paragraphs 1 to 44.

Insurance - Topic 725

Insurers - Duties - Duty to defend - An insurance policy provided that "We will defend, by counsel of our choice, any suit against you alleging bodily injury or prop­erty damage and seeking compensatory damages, even if it is groundless, false or fraudulent" - The insured submitted that the duty to defend was independent of the duty of indemnify; that the insurer must defend any claim alleging bodily injury and seeking compensatory damages - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the duty to defend arose only when the pleaded claim, if proven, could fall within the scope of coverage under the policy - If a policy excluded coverage for intentional­ly caused injuries, there was no duty to defend intentional torts - See paragraphs 73 to 78.

Insurance - Topic 725

Insurers - Duties - Duty to defend - An insurance policy provided that "We will defend, by counsel of our choice, any suit against you alleging bodily injury or prop­erty damage and seeking compensatory damages, even if it is groundless, false or fraudulent" - The homeowner's insurance policy excluded coverage for "bodily injury ... caused by an intentional or cri­minal act" - The insured was sued for damages for sexual assault - The alleged victim also claimed in negligence and for breach of fiduciary duty - The Supreme Court of Canada, in finding no duty to defend, stated that "there may be properly pleaded allegations of both intentional and non-intentional tort. When faced with this situation, a court construing an insurer's duty to defend must decide whether the harm allegedly inflicted by the negligent conduct is derivative of that caused by the intentional conduct. In this context, a claim for negligence will not be derivative if the underlying elements of the negligence and of the intentional tort are sufficiently dis­parate to render the two claims unrelated. If both the negligence and intentional tort claims arise from the same actions and cause the same harm, the negligence claim is derivative, and it will be subsumed into the intentional tort for the purposes of the exclusion clause analysis. If, on the other hand, neither claim is derivative, the claim of negligence will survive and the duty to defend will apply." - See paragraph 85.

Insurance - Topic 1856

The insurance contract - Interpretation of contract - Exclusions - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "since insur­ance contracts are essentially adhesionary, the standard practice is to construe ambi­guities against the insurer ... A corollary of this principle is that 'cov­erage provisions should be construed broadly and exclusion clauses narrowly'" - See paragraph 70.

Insurance - Topic 1861

The insurance contract - Interpretation of contract - Contra proferentem rule - Am­biguity construed against insurer - [See Insurance - Topic 1856 ].

Torts - Topic 3200

Trespass - Assault and battery - Defences -Consent - The Supreme Court of Cana­da stated that "we should not lightly set aside the traditional rights-based approach to the law of battery that is now the law of Canada" - The traditional rule was that the victim must prove direct contact, then the burden shifted to the defendant to prove consent - There was no onus on the victim to prove that the de­fendant knew or ought to have known that she did not consent - The court stated that "the tort of battery is aimed at protecting the personal autonomy of the individual. Its purpose is to recog­nize the right of each person to control his or her body and who touches it, and to per­mit damages where this right is vio­lated. The compen­sation stems from viol­ation of the right to autonomy, not fault. When a person inter­feres with the body of another, a prima facie case of violation of the plaintiff's autonomy is made out. The law may then fairly call upon the person thus implicated to explain, if he can. If he can show that he acted with consent, the prima facie violation is negated and the plaintiff's claim will fail. But it is not up to the plaintiff to prove that, in addition to di­rectly interfering with her body, the de­fendant was also at fault." - See para­graphs 15 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

Collins v. Wilcock, [1984] 3 All E.R. 374 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 2].

Cook v. Lewis, [1951] S.C.R. 830, refd to. [para. 4].

Goshen v. Larin (1974), 10 N.S.R.(2d) 66; 2 A.P.R. 66; 56 D.L.R.(3d) 719 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Walmsley v. Humenick, [1954] 2 D.L.R. 232 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Tillander v. Gosselin (1966), 60 D.L.R.(2d) 18 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1967), 61 D.L.R.(2d) 192 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Dahlberg v. Naydiuk (1969), 10 D.L.R.(3d) 319 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Ellison v. Rogers (1967), 67 D.L.R.(2d) 21 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; 33 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 6].

Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226; 138 N.R. 81; 9 B.C.A.C. 1; 19 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

Scott v. Shepherd (1772), 2 Black. W. 892; 96 E.R. 525 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Leame v. Bray (1803), 3 East 593; 102 E.R. 724 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Fowler v. Lanning, [1959] 1 Q.B. 426, refd to. [para. 9].

Letang v. Cooper, [1965] 1 Q.B. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Bell Canada v. COPE (Sarnia) Ltd. (1980), 11 C.C.L.T. 170 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1980), 31 O.R.(2d) 571 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Cole v. Turner (1704), 6 Mod. 149; 87 E.R. 907, refd to. [para. 16].

Stewart v. Stonehouse, [1926] 2 D.L.R. 683 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

F., Re, [1990] 2 A.C. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 19].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 22].

Freeman v. Home Office, [1983] 3 All E.R. 589 (Q.B.), affd. [1984] 1 All E.R. 1036 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

H. v. R., [1996] 1 N.Z.L.R. 299 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Pursell v. Horn (1838), 8 AD. & E. 602; 112 E.R. 966, refd to. [para. 23].

Green v. Goddard (1704), 2 Salkeld 641; 91 E.R. 540, refd to. [para. 23].

Humphries v. Connor (1864), 17 Ir. Com. L. Rep. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Forde v. Skinner (1830), 4 Car. & P. 239; 172 E.R. 687, refd to. [para. 23].

Schweizer v. Central Hospital (1974), 53 D.L.R.(3d) 494 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Allan v. New Mount Sinai Hospital (1980), 109 D.L.R.(3d) 634 (Ont. H.C.), revd. (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 603 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Brushett v. Cowan (1990), 83 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 66; 260 A.P.R. 66; 3 C.C.L.T.(2d) 195 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

O'Bonsawin v. Paradis (1993), 15 C.C.L.T.(2d) 188 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 36].

State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Williams (1984), 355 N.W.2d 421 (Minn.), refd to. [para. 39].

Sansalone v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. (2000), 253 N.R. 95 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Sirois v. Saindon and Co-operative Fire & Casualty Co., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 735; 4 N.R. 343, refd to. [para. 61].

Brissette v. Westbury Life Insurance Co., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 87; 142 N.R. 104; 58 O.A.C. 10, refd to. [para. 70].

Wigle et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada (1984), 6 O.A.C. 161; 49 O.R.(2d) 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Reid Crowther & Partners Ltd. v. Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Co., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 252; 147 N.R. 44; 83 Man.R.(2d) 81; 36 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 70].

Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Excel Cleaning Service, [1954] S.C.R. 169, refd to. [para. 70].

Parsons v. Standard Fire Insurance Co. (1880), 5 S.C.R. 233, refd to. [para. 71].

Scott v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1445; 94 N.R. 261, refd to. [para. 71].

Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd. v. Mutual Boiler and Machinery Insurance Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 888; 32 N.R. 488, refd to. [para. 71].

Guarantee Co. of North America v. Gordon Capital Corp., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 423; 247 N.R. 97; 126 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 71].

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. 74].

Conner v. Transamerica Insurance Co. (1972), 496 P.2d 770 (Okla.), refd to. [para. 75].

Modern Livestock Ltd. and Lane v. Kansa General Insurance Co. (1993), 143 A.R. 46; 11 Alta. L.R.(3d) 355 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 77].

B.P. Canada Inc. v. Comco Service Station Construction & Maintenance Ltd. (1990), 73 O.R.(2d) 317 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 77].

Kates v. Hall, [1990] 5 W.W.R. 569 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 77].

Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Snowbarger (1997), 934 P.2d 909 (Colo. Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 78].

Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport I­ndem­nity Co. (1997), 948 P.2d 909 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 78].

Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. v. Knopf (1996), 674 A.2d 65 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.), refd to. [para. 78].

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Patterson (1995), 904 F.Supp. 1270 (D. Utah), refd to. [para. 78].

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Brown (1993), 834 F.Supp. 854 (E.D. Pa.), refd to. [para. 78].

Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966), 419 P.2d 168 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 78].

Bacon v. McBride (1984), 6 D.L.R.(4th) 96 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 80].

Peerless Insurance Co. v. Viegas (1995), 667 A.2d 785 (R.I.S.C.), refd to. [para. 82].

Houg v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (1992), 481 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 87].

Linebaugh v. Berdish (1985), 376 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 88].

Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Leeber (1988), 376 S.E.2d 581 (W. Va.), refd to. [para. 88].

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Troelstrup (1990), 789 P.2d 415 (Col.), refd to. [para. 88].

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Lajoie (1995), 661 A.2d 85 (Vt.), refd to. [para. 88].

Straits Towing Ltd. et al. v. Walkem Machinery & Equipment Ltd. and Cana­dian Indemnity Co., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 309; 3 N.R. 523, refd to. [para. 92].

Wilson v. Pringle, [1986] 2 All E.R. 440 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Spivey v. Battaglia (1972), 258 So.2d 815 (Fla.), refd to. [para. 97].

Bettel v. Yim (1978), 20 O.R.(2d) 617 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 99].

Long v. Gardner (1983), 144 D.L.R.(3d) 73 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 101].

Veinot v. Veinot (1977), 22 N.S.R.(2d) 630; 31 A.P.R. 630; 81 D.L.R.(3d) 549 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

Rumsey v. Canada (1984), 12 D.L.R.(4th) 44 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 101].

Holt v. Verbruggen (1981), 20 C.C.L.T. 29 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 101].

Garratt v. Dailey (1955), 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash.), refd to. [para. 102].

Vosburg v. Putney (1891), 50 N.W. 458 (Wis.), refd to. [para. 102].

Clayton v. New Dreamland Roller Skating Rink Inc. (1951), 82 A.2d 458 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), refd to. [para. 102].

Kirkpatrick v. Crutchfield (1919), 100 S.E. 602 (N.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

Hambley v. Shepley (1967), 63 D.L.R.(2d) 94 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

Mandel v. The Permanent (1985), 7 O.A.C. 365 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 104].

Wiffin v. Kincard (1807), 2 Bos. & Pul(N.R.) 471; 127 E.R. 713 (C.P.), refd to. [para. 106].

Coward v. Baddeley (1859), 4 H. & N. 478; 157 E.R. 927 (Ex.), refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Ewanchuk (S.B.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; 235 N.R. 323; 232 A.R. 1; 195 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 111].

M.M. v. K.K. (1989), 61 D.L.R.(4th) 392 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Harder v. Brown (1989), 50 C.C.L.T. 85 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 117].

Lyth v. Dagg (1988), 46 C.C.L.T. 25 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. McCraw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72; 128 N.R. 299; 49 O.A.C. 47, refd to. [para. 120].

CNA Insurance Co. v. McGinnis (1984), 666 S.W.2d 689 (Ark.), refd to. [para. 121].

B.B. v. Continental Insurance Co. (1993), 8 F.3d 1288 (8th Cir.), refd to. [para. 121].

J.C. Penney Casualty Insurance Co. v. M.K. (1991), 804 P.2d 689 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 121].

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. D.T.S. (1993), 867 S.W.2d 642 (Mo. Co. App.), refd to. [para. 121].

American States Insurance Co. v. Borbor (1987), 826 F.2d 888 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 121].

Troelstrup v. District Court (1986), 712 P.2d 1010 (Colo.), refd to. [para. 121].

Rodriguez v. Williams (1986), 729 P.2d 627 (Wash.), refd to. [para. 121].

Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Indepen­dent School District No. 66 (1984), 355 N.W.2d 413 (Minn.), refd to. [para. 121].

Altena v. United Fire & Casualty Co. (1988), 422 N.W.2d 485 (Iowa), refd to. [para. 122].

Wilkieson-Valiente v. Wilkieson, [1996] I.L.R. ¶1-3351 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 123].

Hatton v. Webb (1977), 7 A.R. 303; 81 D.L.R.(3d) 377 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 126].

Newcastle (Town) v. Mattatall et al. (1988), 87 N.B.R.(2d) 238; 221 A.P.R. 238; 52 D.L.R.(4th) 356 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 127].

Board of Education of Long Lake School Division No. 30 of Saskatchewan v. Schatz (1986), 49 Sask.R. 244; 18 C.C.L.I. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 127].

Devlin v. Co-operative Fire & Casualty Co. et al. (1978), 11 A.R. 271; 90 D.L.R.(3d) 444 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 127].

Pistolesi v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insur­ance Co. (1996), 644 N.Y.S.2d 819 (App. Div.), refd to. [para. 127].

M'Alister v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 129].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 131].

Brennan v. Williams (1986), 713 P.2d 135 (Wash. Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 134].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Restatement of the Law of Torts (2nd Ed. 1965), vol. 1, §18, comment d [para. 124].

Atrens, J.J., Intentional Interference with the Person, in Studies in Canadian Tort Law (1968), p. 378 [para. 101].

Bell, Robert, Sexual Abuse and Institu­tions: Insurance Issues (1996), 6 C.I.L.R. 53, pp. 54, 55 [para. 134].

Brazier, Margaret, Street on Torts (10th Ed. 1999), p. 32 [para. 107].

Brown, Craig, Insurance Law in Canada (3rd Ed. 1997), p. 4 [para. 69].

Brown, Craig, Insurance Law in Canada (1999 looseleaf), vol. 1, p. 1-1 [para. 135].

Brown, Craig, and Menezes, Julio, Insur­ance Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 125, 126 [para. 68].

Canada, Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group of Attorneys General on Gender Equality in the Canadian Justice System, General Equality in the Cana­dian Justice System: Summary Document and Proposals for Action (1992), gen­erally [para. 110].

Feldthusen, Bruce, The Canadian Experi­ment with the Civil Action for Sexual Battery, in Torts in the Nineties (N.J. Mullany, ed.) (1997), p. 281 [para. 27].

Feldthusen, Bruce, The Civil Action for Sexual Battery: Therapeutic Jurispru­dence? (1993), 25 U. Ottawa L. Rev. 203, p. 233 [para. 69].

Fischer, James M., Broadening the In­surer's Duty to Defend: How Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. Transformed Lia­bility Insurance into Litigation Insurance (1991), 25 U.C. David L. Rev. 141, pp. 146 to 157 [para. 76].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (9th Ed. 1998), p. 86 [para. 5].

Florig, David S., Insurance Coverage for Sexual Abuse or Molestation (1995), 30 Tort & Ins. L.J. 699, generally [para. 122].

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Torts in Canada (1989), vol. 1, p. 63 [para. 5].

Heuston, R.V.F., and Buckley, R.A., The Law of Torts (21st Ed. 1996), p. 121 [para. 19].

Klar, Lewis, Tort Law (2nd Ed. 1996), pp. 30 [para. 98]; 42 [para. 96]; 43, 44 [para. 106]; 47 [para. 125].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (6th Ed. 1997), pp. 43 [para. 97]; 44 [para. 106].

Linden, Allen M., and Klar, Lewis N., Canadian Tort Law: Cases, Notes and Materials (10th Ed. 1994), p. 102 [para. 5].

McCormick on Evidence (5th Ed. 1999), vol. 2, §337 [para. 33].

Pryor, Ellen S., The Stories We Tell: In­tentional Harm and the Quest for Insur­ance Funding (1997), 75 Tex. L. Rev. 1721, p. 1735 [para. 84].

Pryor, Ellen S., The Tort Liability Regime and the Duty to Defend (1999), 58 Md. L. Rev. 1, generally [para. 76].

Reynolds, Osborne M., Tortious Battery: Is "I Didn't Mean Any Harm" Relevant? (1984), 37 Okla. L. Rev. 717, generally [para. 97].

Sharp, Frederick L., Negligent Trespass in Canada: A Persistent Source of Embar­rassment (1978), 1 Adv. Q. 311, pp. 312 to 314, 326 [para. 9].

Sopinka, J., Lederman, S.N., and Bryant, A.W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), §3.70 [para. 33].

Sullivan, Ruth, Trespass to the Person in Canada: A Defence of the Traditional Approach (1987), 19 Ott. L. Rev. 533, pp. 546 [para. 10]; 562 [para. 11]; 563 [para. 32].

Vail, Brian, "My Mistake, Your Problem": The Duty to Defend Liability Claims in Canada (1996), 6 C.I.L.R. 201, p. 207 [para. 76].

Counsel:

Bruce P. Cran and Murray G. Madryga, for the appellant;

Eric A. Dolden and Karen F.W. Liang, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Cran Law Offices, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Dolden Walker Folick, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 14, 1999, before L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On May 3, 2000, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gon­thier and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 45;

Iacobucci, J. (Major and Bastarache, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 46 to 139.