Somers v. Fournier et al., (2002) 162 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

• Judge: Finlayson, Carthy and Cronk, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: February 14, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2002), 162 O.A.C. 1 (CA);2002 CanLII 45001 (ON CA);60 OR (3d) 225;214 DLR (4th) 611;12 CCLT (3d) 68;CarswellOnt 219;[2002] OJ No 2543 (QL);114 ACWS (3d) 848;162 OAC 1;22 CPC (4th) 264;27 MVR (4th) 165

Somers v. Fournier (2002), 162 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.001

Arthur James Somers and Lola Somers (respondents/appellant in cross-appeal) v. Steven D. Fournier and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (appellants/respondents in cross-appeal)

(C36748)

Indexed As: Somers v. Fournier et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Finlayson, Carthy and Cronk, JJ.A.

June 27, 2002.

Summary:

The Somers were residents of Ontario. In 1990, the Somers were involved in a motor vehicle accident with a car driven by Fournier, a resident of the State of New York, while on a road trip in New York State. The Somers commenced an action in Ontario against Fournier and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (Ms. Somers insurer under a standard form automobile insurance policy). The defendants attorned to the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts. The Liberty Mutual policy was silent on the choice of law applicable to claims arising from accidents in foreign jurisdictions. Fournier moved prior to trial for a declaration that the substantive law of New York State applied to the action.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2001] O.T.C. 501, held that the substantive law of New York State and the procedural law of Ontario applied to the action. The court further concluded that prejudgment interest, costs and Ontario's "cap" on non-pecuniary general damages were procedural in nature and, therefore, were governed in the action by Ontario law. (The "cap" being the limits on nonpecuniary general damages in personal injury cases established by the Supreme Court of Canada in a trilogy of cases decided in the 1970s). Fournier appealed the motions judge's decision that: a) the procedural law of Ontario applied, and b) that Ontario procedural law governed claims in the action for prejudgment interest and costs. Ms. Somers cross-appealed the motions judge's determination that the substantive law of New York State applied to the action and, in the alternative, his conclusion that the "cap" on non-pecuniary general damages recognized under Ontario law applied to claims in the action for damages for non-pecuniary losses and expenses.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the substantive law of New York State applied to the action and that costs and Ontario's "cap" on non-pecuniary general damages were matters of procedure to which Ontario law applied. However, the court held that prejudgment interest was a matter of the substantive law of Ontario, which law had no application to the action. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal on that issue only and dismissed the cross-appeal.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7654

Torts - Choice of law - General - Procedural matters - The Somers, residents of Ontario, were involved in a motor vehicle accident in New York State with a car driven by Fournier, who resided in that State - The Somers sued Ms. Somers' own insurer and Fournier in Ontario - The defendants attorned to the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts - A motions judge determined that the substantive law of New York State and the procedural law of Ontario applied to this action - Further, prejudgment interest, costs and Ontario's "cap" on non-pecuniary general damages were procedural in nature and, therefore, were governed by Ontario law (The "cap" being the limits on nonpecuniary general damages established by the Supreme Court of Canada in a trilogy of cases decided in the 1970s) - Fournier appealed and Ms. Somers cross-appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, except for holding that prejudgment interest was a matter of the substantive law of Ontario, which law had no application to the action.

Conflict of Laws - 7690

Torts - Choice of law - Torts affecting the person - Damages - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 7654 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7806

Torts - Choice of law - Torts committed outside Canada - Actions against automobile insurers - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 7654 ].

Cases Noticed:

Tolofson v. Jensen and Tolofson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; 175 N.R. 161; 77 O.A.C. 81; 51 B.C.A.C. 241; 84 W.A.C. 241; [1995] 1 W.W.R. 609; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 100 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 7 M.V.R.(3d) 202, refd to. [para. 12].

Sutt v. Sutt, [1969] 1 O.R. 169 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Bell Canada v. Consumers' Association of Canada - see Bell Canada, Re.

Bell Canada, Re, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 190; 65 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 16].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 16].

Pagliarella v. Di Biase Brothers Inc. et al. (1989), 33 O.A.C. 28; 68 O.R.(2d) 597 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1989), 102 N.R. 398; 37 O.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Graham et al. v. Rourke (1990), 40 O.A.C. 301; 75 O.R.(2d) 622 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

A1-Qahtani-Shaw-Leonard Ltd. v. Crossworld Freight Ltd. (1988), 60 O.R.(2d) 565 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Sawadski v. Heil (1992), 52 O.A.C. 127; 86 D.L.R.(4th) 364 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Oakville Storage and Forwarding Ltd. v. Canadian National Railway Co. - see Armak Chemicals Ltd. v. Canadian National Railway Co.

Armak Chemicals Ltd. v. Canadian National Railway Co. (1991), 52 O.A.C. 188; 52 O.R.(3d) 1; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 326 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1992), 137 N.R. 238; 55 O.A.C. 320; 86 D.L.R.(4th) vii (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning (1994), 71 O.A.C. 161; 18 O.R.(3d) 385; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 27].

Wong v. Lee et al. (2002), 157 O.A.C. 340 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Lau et al. v. Li et al., [2001] O.T.C. 248; 53 O.R.(3d) 727 (Sup. Ct.), not folld. [para. 39].

Gotch v. Ramirez et al., [2000] O.T.C. 301; 48 O.R.(3d) 515 (Sup. Ct.), not folld. [para. 39].

Gill et al. v. Gill, [2000] B.C.T.C. 325 (S.C.), not folld. [para. 39].

Wong et al. v. Wei et al. (1999), 8 B.C.T.C. 251 (S.C.), not folld. [para. 39].

McLean v. Pettigrew, [1945] S.C.R. 62, refd to. [para. 44].

Grimes v. Cloutier and Cloutier (1989), 34 O.A.C. 376; 69 O.R.(2d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Prefontaine Estate et al. v. Frizzle; Cuddihey; Cuddihey et al. v. Robinson et al. (1990), 38 O.A.C. 22; 71 O.R.(2d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182, refd to. [para. 48].

Thornton v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267; 19 N.R. 552; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 480; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 607; 3 C.C.L.T. 257, refd to. [para. 48].

Teno et al. v. Arnold et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287; 19 N.R. 1; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 609; 3 C.C.L.T. 272, refd to. [para. 48].

Metaxas v. Ship Galaxias et al. (No. 5), [1990] 2 F.C. 400; 35 F.T.R. 40 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 52].

Stevens v. Head (1993), 67 A.L.J.R. 343 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

Goryl v. Greyhound Australian Pty. Ltd. (1994), 68 A.L.J.R. 432 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

Chaplin v. Boys, [1971] A.C. 356 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 55].

Coupland v. Arabian Gulf Petroleum Co., [1983] 2 All E.R. 434 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 55].

Caltex Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. B.P. Shipping, [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 286 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Herceg Novi v. Ming Galaxy, [1998] 4 All E.R. 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 43, sect. 128(1) [para. 21]; sect. 131 [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Castel, J.-G., and Walker, J., Canadian Conflict of Laws (2002) (Looseleaf Ed.), p. 6.7 [para. 51].

Collins, L., in Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws (2000), pp. 171 [para. 51]; 172 [para. 54].

Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws (2000), pp. 171 [para. 51]; 172 [para. 54].

Orkin, Mark M., Costs: The Bottom Line (1999), generally [para. 16].

Waddams, S.M., The Law of Damages (2000) (Looseleaf), para. 7.930 [para. 26].

Waldron, M.A., The Law of Interest in Canada (1992), pp. 127 [para. 23]; 129 [para. 25].

Counsel:

Gordon A. Wiggins, for the appellant and respondent in cross-appeal, S.D. Fournier;

R. Donald Rollo and Edward J. Cottrill, for the respondent in cross-appeal, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.;

Raymond A.D. Watt, for the respondent and appellant in cross-appeal, Lola Somers.

This appeal was heard on February 14, 2002, before Finlayson, Carthy and Cronk, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Cronk, J.A., delivered the following decision for the Court of Appeal on June 27, 2002.