Shanks v. Shay et al., (2015) 429 N.B.R.(2d) 290 (CA)

• Judge: Larlee, Richard and Green, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: October 23, 2014
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2015), 429 N.B.R.(2d) 290 (CA);2015 NBCA 2

Shanks v. Shay (2015), 429 N.B.R.(2d) 290 (CA);

    429 R.N.-B.(2e) 290; 1119 A.P.R. 290

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: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.019

Renvoi temp.: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.019

Bruce Shanks (appellant) v. Peter Shay, Kelly Leydon, Brad Dash, Debbie White, TD Home and Auto Insurance Company, Robert L. Gaudet, Plant Hope Adjusters Ltd. and CAA Insurance Company (Ontario) (respondents)

(108-13-CA; 2015 NBCA 2)

Indexed As: Shanks v. Shay et al.

Répertorié: Shanks v. Shay et al.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Larlee, Richard and Green, JJ.A.

January 15, 2015.

Summary:

Résumé:

The plaintiff's action against his two automobile insurers (who had denied his claims) alleged, inter alia, breach of contract, bad faith and negligence. The defendants sought severance of the issues and of the claims against each of them.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, severed the breach of contract claim and ordered that it be tried first. The court declined to sever the action into two separate and distinct claims. The plaintiff appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 5204

Trials - General - Severance of issues or parties - General - The plaintiff's action against his two automobile insurers (who had denied his claims) alleged, inter alia, breach of contract, bad faith and negligence - A motion judge severed the breach of contract claim and ordered that it be tried first - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal - The test for severance was simply whether it was "just and convenient" - The test was not one in which multiple criteria had to be weighed in the balance - Judges were to address their minds to the criteria relevant to the case at hand - Here, the test justified severance - The first issue was simple: was the insurer within its rights to void the policy because the plaintiff had used his vehicle for business purposes - The second issue was more complicated - Resolution of the first issue might end the action - This was a matter of common sense - The motion judge made a discretionary order to control process that was not open to appellate intervention under the applicable standard of review - See paragraphs 11 to 24.

Practice - Topic 8804

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding discretionary orders - The plaintiff's action against his two automobile insurers (who had denied his claims) alleged, inter alia, breach of contract, bad faith and negligence - A motion judge severed the breach of contract claim and ordered that it be tried first - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal - Regarding the standard of review, the court stated, "An impugned Order which is the result of an exercise of judicial discretion is not completely insulated from review, but may be interfered with on appeal if it is founded upon an error of law, an error in the application of the governing principles, or a palpable and overriding error in the assessment of the evidence; or if it is unreasonable, in the sense that nothing in the record can justify it" - See paragraphs 9 and 10.

Procédure - Cote 5204

Procès - Généralités - Séparation des points en litige ou des parties - Généralités - [Voir Practice - Topic 5204 ].

Procédure - Cote 8804

Appels - Principes généraux - Devoir d'une Cour d'appel relativement à des ordonnances discrétionnaires - [Voir Practice - Topic 8804 ].

Cases Noticed:

British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371; 313 N.R. 84; 189 B.C.A.C. 161; 309 W.A.C. 161; 2003 SCC 71, refd to. [para. 9].

Beaverbrook Canadian Foundation v. Beaverbrook Art Gallery (2006), 302 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 784 A.P.R. 161; 2006 NBCA 75, refd to. [para. 9].

Williamson et al. v. Gillis et al. (2011), 374 N.B.R.(2d) 311; 965 A.P.R. 311; 2011 NBCA 53, refd to. [para. 10].

Walsh v. Nicholls et al. (2004), 273 N.B.R.(2d) 203; 717 A.P.R. 203; 2004 NBCA 59, refd to. [para. 11].

Coenen v. Payne, [1974] 2 All E.R. 1109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

McManus v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (1993), 119 N.S.R.(2d) 137; 330 A.P.R. 137 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Savoie v. Duguay - see/voir Doucet v. Savoie.

Doucet v. Savoie (1998), 197 N.B.R.(2d) 395; 504 A.P.R. 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Humble v. Murphy et al., [2011] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 17].

Bourne v. Saunby (1993), 23 C.P.C.(3d) 333 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

Jeux Maritimes Inc. v. Commission des loteries du Nouveau-Brunswick (1994), 150 N.B.R.(2d) 46; 385 A.P.R. 46 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Nowicki v. Price et al. (2011), 516 A.R. 105; 2011 ABQB 133, refd to. [para. 20].

Marco Maritimes Ltd. v. Intact Insurance Co. (2012), 390 N.B.R.(2d) 255; 1011 A.P.R. 255; 2012 NBQB 204, refd to. [para. 21].

MacLean v. Diaotati (2012), 396 N.B.R.(2d) 56; 1024 A.P.R. 56; 2012 NBQB 33, refd to. [para. 21].

Dunphy's Poultry Farm Ltd. v. Merrithew, [2004] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 47; 2004 NBCA 25, refd to. [para. 27].

Doucet et al. v. Spielo Manufacturing Inc. et al. (2011), 372 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 961 A.P.R. 1; 2011 NBCA 44, leave to appeal refused (2011), 447 N.R. 384 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Lipton, Thomas, Severance: Justice for More (2010), 88:3 Can. Bar Rev. 635, generally [para. 22].

Counsel:

Avocats:

George A. McAllister, Q.C., for the appellant;

Philip Chapman, for the respondents, Peter Shay, Kelly Leydon, Brad Dash, Debbie White and TD Home and Auto Insurance Company;

Dennis P. Gonzalez, for the respondents, Robert L. Gaudet and Plant Hope Adjusters Ltd.;

Lucie M. LaBoissonnière, for the respondent, CAA Insurance Company (Ontario).

This appeal was heard on October 23, 2014, by Larlee, Richard and Green, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. On January 15, 2015, Larlee, J.A., rendered the following judgment for the court in both official languages.