Tingley et al. v. Wellington Insurance Co. et al., (2010) 296 N.S.R.(2d) 288 (SC)

• Judge: MacAdam, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: December 29, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2010), 296 N.S.R.(2d) 288 (SC);2010 NSSC 465

Tingley v. Wellington Ins. (2010), 296 N.S.R.(2d) 288 (SC);

    940 A.P.R. 288

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.050

Patricia M. Tingley, Kelli L. Smith, Todd A. Smith and Margaret M. Burton (plaintiffs) v. Wellington Insurance Company, a body corporate, and Larry D. Hay (defendants)

(Hfx No. 115328; 2010 NSSC 465)

Indexed As: Tingley et al. v. Wellington Insurance Co. et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

MacAdam, J.

December 29, 2010.

Summary:

The plaintiffs alleged that they suffered health problems caused by exposure to an undefined toxic chemical dispersed in one of the plaintiff's homes during a break and enter committed while they were away. The insurer, through its adjuster (defendants), had the home cleaned. The plaintiffs moved back in and allegedly their health problems continued. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages, alleging negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable fraud. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were negligent or breached an implied contractual duty in failing to properly deal with the toxicity problems. At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the defendant brought a non-suit motion under rule 51.06 in relation to the negligence, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation claims. The defendants submitted that there was no evidence to establish the standard of care in these circumstances on the part of the defendants. Alternatively, there was no evidence establishing a causal connection between the plaintiffs' damages and any act or omission by the defendants. The defendants submitted that there was no objective evidence of the presence of a toxic chemical in the home and, alternatively, there was evidence that the alleged health problems could have resulted from the plaintiffs' initial exposure upon entering the home (i.e, before the defendants' involvement).

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (2009), 281 N.S.R.(2d) 99; 893 A.P.R. 99, allowed the non-suit motion respecting the claims for breach of contract, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The motion was dismissed respecting the negligent misrepresentation claim, as the adjuster's alleged statement to the plaintiffs that the home was "safe" to return to could, if all of the elements were established, found liability for negligent misrepresentation. The trial subsequently proceeded on the claims of negligent misrepresentation and equitable fraud.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the claims. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the alleged statement was made, that a toxic substance was present in the house, or that there was a causal connection between their current health problems and exposure to toxic substances in the house. Absent evidence of dishonesty on the defendants' part, the claim for equitable fraud failed.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 8

Fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit) - General principles - What constitutes equitable fraud - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court distinguished fraud from equitable fraud, stating that "in the first case [fraud] the defendant knows the statement is false, while in the second [equitable fraud], although it cannot be proven that the defendant knew the statement was false, it does not appear that there was an honest belief in its truth. If a representor honestly believes that statement is true he will not be liable in deceit or fraud 'no matter how ill-advised, stupid, credulous or even negligent he may have been'" - See paragraph 203.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 8

Fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit) - General principles - What constitutes equitable fraud - [See Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508 ].

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2502

Misrepresentation - General principles - Elements of actionable misrepresentation - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court generally discussed the elements required for actionable misrepresentation, including the duty of care, reasonable reliance and causation - See paragraphs 151 to 197.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508

Misrepresentation - General principles - Negligent misrepresentation - The plaintiffs alleged that their current health problems were caused by exposure to an undefined toxic chemical dispersed in one of the plaintiff's homes during a break and enter committed while they were away - The insurer, through its adjuster (defendants), investigated, then had the home cleaned - The plaintiffs moved back in and claimed continued health problems - The plaintiffs sued the defendants, claiming equitable fraud and negligence for stating that the home was "safe" after cleaning - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the claims - The plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants represented that the home was safe - They merely represented that nothing unsafe was found - The plaintiffs also failed to prove that a toxic substance was present in the home or that there was a causal connection between their current health problems and exposure to toxic substances in the home - There was no test data or scientific or objective evidence that any substance in the home was toxic or could contribute to any of the plaintiffs' illnesses - The fact that evidence did not exclude the possibility of toxic chemicals did not prove that they were present - The plaintiff, having the burden of proof, had to establish toxicity - The defendants were not required to prove the absence of toxicity - Absent evidence of dishonesty on the defendants' part, the claim for equitable fraud failed - See paragraphs 146 to 508.

Cases Noticed:

Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169; 60 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 149].

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 149].

Desmond v. McKinlay (2000), 188 N.S.R.(2d) 211; 587 A.P.R. 211; 2000 CarswellNS 178 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 150].

Manitoba Sausage Manufacturing Co. v. Winnipeg (City) (1976), 1 C.C.L.T. 221; 1976 CarswellMan 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 150].

Hercules Management Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; 211 N.R. 352; 115 Man.R.(2d) 241; 139 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 151].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 151].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 151].

Cape Breton Development Corp. v. Roper (D.) Services Ltd. (2005), 229 N.S.R.(2d) 307; 725 A.P.R. 307; 2005 NSCA 7, refd to. [para. 165].

Lang v. Knickle, [2006] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 94; 2006 NSSC 177, refd to. [para. 167].

Ismail v. Treats Inc. et al. (2004), 220 N.S.R.(2d) 151; 694 A.P.R. 151; 2004 NSSC 16, refd to. [para. 167].

Dugas v. Boutilier (1981), 45 N.S.R.(2d) 98; 86 A.P.R. 98 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 174].

Mariani v. Lemstra et al., [2004] O.J. No. 4283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 176].

Anderson v. Grace Maternity Hospital et al. (1989), 93 N.S.R.(2d) 141; 242 A.P.R. 141 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 181].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94, refd to. [para. 181].

Hanke v. Resurfice Corp. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333; 357 N.R. 175; 404 A.R. 333; 394 W.A.C. 333; 2007 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 182].

Seiler v. Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of British Columbia et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. Uned. 644; 2003 BCSC 1423, application to extend time to appeal dismissed (2003), 190 B.C.A.C. 299; 311 W.A.C. 299; 2003 BCCA 696, leave to appeal denied (2004), 332 N.R. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 186].

MacIntyre v. Cape Breton District Health Authority (2009), 279 N.S.R.(2d) 327; 887 A.P.R. 327; 2009 NSSC 202, refd to. [para. 188].

Pack v. Warner (County) (1964), 44 D.L.R. 215; 1964 CarswellAlta 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 192].

Derry v. Peek (1889), 14 App. Cas. 337 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 198].

Aucoin and Aucoin v. Young (1988), 87 N.B.R.(2d) 170; 221 A.P.R. 170 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 201].

O'Hara v. Chez Chappeaux Ltd., Renouf and Kitz (1978), 23 N.S.R.(2d) 610; 32 A.P.R. 610 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 202].

Morash v. Morash (1977), 27 N.S.R.(2d) 47; 41 A.P.R. 47 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 202].

Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada v. Hutton et al., [2000] O.T.C. 475 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 202].

Thomas and Thomas v. Whitehouse (1979), 24 N.B.R.(2d) 485; 48 A.P.R. 485 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 202].

862590 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Petro Canada Inc. et al., [2000] O.T.C. 176; 33 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 107; 2000 CarswellOnt 937 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 207].

Williamson Brothers Construction Ltd. v. British Columbia (1990), 41 C.L.R. 192; 1990 CarswellBC 699 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 207].

R. v. White, [1947] S.C.R. 268, refd to. [para. 211].

R. v. Sparks (A.) et al., [2006] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 113; 2006 NSPC 45, refd to. [para. 212].

R. v. Al Jamail (J.J.), [2006] A.R. Uned. 792; 2006 ABPC 292, refd to. [para. 212].

Lockhart v. Lockhart (2008), 268 N.S.R.(2d) 381; 857 A.P.R. 381; 2008 NSSC 271, refd to. [para. 213].

R. v. Norman (D.L.) (1993), 68 O.A.C. 22; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 214].

Jones v. National Coal Board, [1957] 2 Q.B. 55 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 440].

McCarthy v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) et al. (2001), 193 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 602 A.P.R. 301; 2001 CarswellNS 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 441].

Dalton Cartage Co. v. Continental Insurance Co. and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 164; 40 N.R. 135, refd to. [para. 442].

R. v. Burdett, [1814-23] All E.R. Rep. 80 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 444].

R. v. Atkinson (1866), 17 U.C.C.P. 295 (U.C.C.P.), refd to. [para. 445].

R. v. Nerlich (1915), 34 O.L.R. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 445].

Lindsay v. Davidson (1911), 1 W.W.R. 125; 1911 CarswellSask 61 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 446].

Davidson et al. v. Nova Scotia Government Employees Union (2005), 231 N.S.R.(2d) 245; 733 A.P.R. 245; 2005 NSCA 51, refd to. [para. 457].

Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Cooperators General Insurance Co. (1997), 163 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 487 A.P.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 458].

Barker v. McQuahe et al. (1964), 49 W.W.R. 685 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 459].

Robertson v. Halley (1972), 3 N.S.R.(2d) 692 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 460].

Caplan Builders Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada (1988), 32 C.P.C.(2d) 284; 1988 CarswellBC 1328, affd. 1989 CarswellBC 1337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 509].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bingham, Lord, The Judge as Juror: The Judicial Determination of Factual Issues, in The Business of Judging: Selected Essays and Speeches (2000), p. 4 [para. 439].

Cheshire, Geoffrey Chevalier, and Fifoot, Cecil Herbert Stuart, The Law of Contract (9th Ed. 1976), p. 256 [para. 201].

Klar, Lewis N., Remedies in Tort (1987) (Looseleaf Update), vol. 1, p. 5-25 [para. 200]; vol. 2, c. 16, para. 22 [para. 175].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (4th Ed. 2008), p. 674 [para. 199].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 297 [para. 457].

Counsel:

Kevin A. MacDonald, for the plaintiffs;

Jocelyn M. Campbell, Q.C., and W. Harry Thurlow, for the defendants.

This action was heard over 119 days at Halifax, N.S., before MacAdam, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on December 29, 2010.