Unifund Assurance Co. v. ICBC, (2003) 176 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court of Canada
Case DateDecember 12, 2002
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2003), 176 O.A.C. 1 (SCC);2003 SCC 40;306 NR 201;[2003] SCJ No 39 (QL);227 DLR (4th) 402;16 BCLR (4th) 1;[2003] 9 WWR 1;[2003] 2 SCR 63;124 ACWS (3d) 61;176 OAC 1;JE 2003-1355

Unifund Assurance Co. v. ICBC (2003), 176 O.A.C. 1 (SCC)

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: [2003] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.042

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (appellant) v. Unifund Assurance Company (respondent)

(28745; 2003 SCC 40; 2003 CSC 40)

Indexed As: Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.

July 17, 2003.

Summary:

Section 275 of the Ontario Insurance Act provided for indemnification of a no-fault insurer in certain cases and for dispute arbitration. Unifund Assurance Co. (Unifund) applied for an order appointing an arbitrator pursuant to the Ontario Insurance and Arbitration Acts. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) moved for an order staying the application on the basis that the Ontario Insurance Act and its procedure did not apply to the parties in this case, British Columbia law applied and, alternatively, the British Columbia court and not the Ontario court was the proper forum to decide the choice of law issue.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2000] O.T.C. 552, applied forum non conveniens principles and stayed the Ontario arbitration. Unifund appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 146 O.A.C. 162, allowed the appeal. The court held that the application judge should have declined to hear the motion and proceeded with the appointment of the arbitrator who could then deal with any issues of jurisdiction and law, including forum non conveniens. ICBC appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Major, Bastarache and Deschamps, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal. On the procedural issue, the court held that ICBC ought not to be ordered to appear before an arbitrator appointed under the Ontario Act unless and until it was first determined that ICBC was subject to the Ontario Act with respect to the matters in dispute. On the substantive issue, the court held that Unifund was seeking to give the Ontario statute impermissible extraterritorial effect.

Arbitration - Topic 102

Right to arbitration - What matters arbitrable - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "when the authority of a court is invoked to appoint an arbitrator under a statute which one of the parties contends cannot constitutionally apply to it, the court should deal with the challenge." - See paragraph 43.

Arbitration - Topic 102

Right to arbitration - What matters arbitrable - A serious motor vehicle accident occurred in British Columbia - A British Columbia insurer (ICBC) responded there on behalf of the defendants - The injured plaintiffs returned to Ontario and collected statutory no-fault benefits from Unifund, an Ontario insurer - Unifund sought reimbursement by subjecting ICBC to the loss transfer provisions of the Ontario Insurance Act, which provided for dispute arbitration - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Unifund was seeking to give the Ontario statute impermissible extraterritorial effect - The Ontario insurance scheme was wholly inapplicable to ICBC on the facts - Thus, an arbitrator appointed under the Ontario Act was without any statutory or other authority to decide anything in the case, including the objection to its jurisdiction - See paragraphs 16, 17 and 35 to 49.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 603

Jurisdiction - General principles - Jurisdiction simpliciter - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 7286 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 648

Jurisdiction - Submission to jurisdiction - Implied submission - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 7286 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7245

Contracts - Choice of law - Insurance contracts - [See second Arbitration - Topic 102 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7286

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Insurance business - A serious motor vehicle accident occurred in British Columbia - A British Columbia insurer (ICBC) responded there on behalf of the defendants - The injured plaintiffs returned to Ontario and collected statutory no-fault benefits from Unifund, an Ontario insurer - Unifund sought reimbursement by subjecting ICBC to the loss transfer provisions of the Ontario Insurance Act, which provided for dispute arbitration - All Canadian provinces were signatories to a Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU), which was part of a "reciprocal scheme for the enforcement of motor vehicle liability insurance policies in Canadian provinces and territories" - Unifund submitted that the Ontario Insurance Act was constitutionally applicable to ICBC on the basis of a "real and substantial connection" between ICBC and Ontario, and/or ICBC's obligations under the PAU (attornment) - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submissions - Unifund was seeking to give the Ontario statute impermissible extraterritorial effect - There was no statutory cause of action available to Unifund to sue upon in Ontario or British Columbia - See paragraphs 50 to 106.

Insurance - Topic 5010.6

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Reciprocal schemes - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 7286 ].

Insurance - Topic 5010.6

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Reciprocal schemes - A serious motor vehicle accident occurred in British Columbia - A British Columbia insurer (ICBC) responded there on behalf of the defendants - The injured plaintiffs returned to Ontario and collected statutory no-fault benefits from Unifund, an Ontario insurer - Unifund sought reimbursement by subjecting ICBC to the loss transfer provisions of the Ontario Insurance Act - All Canadian provinces were signatories to a Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU), which was part of a "reciprocal scheme for the enforcement of motor vehicle liability insurance policies in Canadian provinces and territories" - Unifund submitted that the Ontario Insurance Act was constitutionally applicable to ICBC on the basis of, inter alia, its obligations under the PAU - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission - The court stated that "The PAU is about enforcement of insurance policies , not about helping insurance companies, which have been paid a premium for the no-fault coverage, to seek to recover in their home jurisdictions their losses from other insurance companies located in a different jurisdiction when the accident took place in that other jurisdiction, and where the claims arising out of the accident were litigated there." - See paragraph 100.

Insurance - Topic 5246

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Subrogation or indemnity - Arbitration - [See second Arbitration - Topic 102 ].

Cases Noticed:

Brennan v. Singh et al. (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 170; 227 W.A.C. 170; 75 B.C.L.R.(3d) 93 (C.A.), affing. (1999), 6 B.C.T.C. 81; 70 B.C.L.R.(3d) 342 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 11, 112].

Ruckheim v. Robinson et al. (1995), 54 B.C.A.C. 189; 88 W.A.C. 189; 1 B.C.L.R.(3d) 46 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Potts v. Gluckstein et al. (1992), 56 O.A.C. 290; 8 O.R.(3d) 556 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Citizens Insurance Co. of Canada v. Parsons (1881), 7 App. Cas. 96, refd to. [para. 23].

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, refd to. [paras. 25, 119].

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 37].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 37].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; 204 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 37].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236, refd to. [para. 39].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 39].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23, refd to. [para. 39].

Jevco Insurance Co. v. Continental Insurance Co. of Canada (2000), 132 O.A.C. 379 (C.A.), affing. (1999), 98 O.T.C. 81 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia - see Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al.

Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 43].

Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. et al. v. Communication Workers of Canada et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 733; 48 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 43].

Royal Bank of Canada v. R., [1913] A.C. 283, refd to. [para. 50].

Gray v. Kerslake, [1958] S.C.R. 3, refd to. [para. 50].

Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; 122 N.R. 81, refd to. [paras. 54, 110].

Hunt v. T & N plc - see Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée et al.

Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289; 161 N.R. 81; 37 B.C.A.C. 161; 60 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 54, 119].

Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Containerline N.V. (Bankrupt) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 907; 280 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 54, 137].

Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. American Mobile Satellite Corp. et al. (2002), 297 N.R. 83 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 54, 110].

R. v. Jameson, [1896] 2 Q.B. 425, refd to. [para. 60].

Pennoyer v. Neff (1877), 95 U.S. 714, refd to. [para. 61].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Scott, [1956] S.C.R. 137, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Interprovincial Co-Operative Ltd. and Dryden Chemicals Ltd., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 477; 4 N.R. 231, refd to. [para. 62].

Credit Foncier Franco-Canadien v. Ross, [1937] 3 D.L.R. 365 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Co. v. Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, [1937] O.R. 796 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Broken Hill South Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxation (N.S.W.) (1937), 56 C.L.R. 337 (Aus. H.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

Kalenczuk v. Kalenczuk (1920), 52 D.L.R. 406 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Manitoba v. Air Canada and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 303; 32 N.R. 244; 4 Man.R.(2d) 278, refd to. [para. 65].

Moran v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 393; 1 N.R. 122, refd to. [paras. 65, 124].

R. v. Thomas Equipment Ltd., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 529; 26 N.R. 499; 15 A.R. 413, refd to. [para. 65].

Ladore v. Bennett, [1939] A.C. 468, refd to. [para. 66].

Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General) et al. - see Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re; Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General) et al.

Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re; Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General) et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; 53 N.R. 268; 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 139 A.P.R. 125, refd to. [paras. 66, 140].

Union Steamship Co. of Australia Proprietary Ltd. v. King (1988), 166 C.L.R. 1 (Aus. H.C.), refd to. [para. 73].

International Shoe Co. v. Washington (State) (1945), 326 U.S. 310 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague (1981), 449 U.S. 302, refd to. [para. 74].

Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494; 252 N.R. 290; 134 B.C.A.C. 207; 219 W.A.C. 207, refd to. [para. 85].

Ratych v. Bloomer, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 940; 107 N.R. 335; 39 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 88].

Cunningham v. Wheeler - see Cooper v. Miller (No. 1).

Cooper v. Miller (No. 1), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 359; 164 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 1; 66 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 88].

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Royal Insurance Co. of Canada, [1999] I.L.R. I-3705; 119 O.A.C. 360 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 89, 133].

MacDonald v. Proctor (1977), 86 D.L.R.(3d) 455 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1979] 2 S.C.R. 153, refd to. [para. 98].

Healy v. Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance Co. et al. (1999), 119 O.A.C. 354; 44 O.R.(3d) 404 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2000] 1 S.C.R. xiii; 256 N.R. 199; 138 O.A.C. 199, refd to. [paras. 99, 101].

Corbett and Nash v. Co-operative Fire and Casualty Co. (1984), 56 A.R. 60; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 531 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 101].

Brennan v. Singh, [2001] B.C.T.C. 1812; 15 C.P.C.(5th) 17 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 112].

Canada Labour Relations Board and Canada (Attorney General) v. L'Anglais (Paul) Inc., J.P.L. Productions Inc. and Canada Union of Public Employees et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 147; 47 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 123].

Muscutt et al. v. Courcelles et al. (2002), 160 O.A.C. 1; 60 O.R.(3d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 125].

Long v. Citi Club, [1995] O.J. No. 1411 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 126].

Brookville Transport Ltd. et al. v. Maine et al. (1997), 189 N.B.R.(2d) 142; 482 A.P.R. 142 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 126].

Negrych v. Campbell's Cabins (1987) Ltd. et al., [1997] 8 W.W.R. 270; 119 Man.R.(2d) 216 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 126].

McNichol Estate v. Woldnik et al. (2001), 150 O.A.C. 68 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

Oakley v. Barry et al. (1998), 166 N.S.R.(2d) 282; 498 A.P.R. 282; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 679 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

O'Brien v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 201 N.S.R.(2d) 338; 629 A.P.R. 338; 210 D.L.R.(4th) 668 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

Pacific International Securities Inc. v. Drake Capital Securities Inc. et al. (2000), 145 B.C.A.C. 221; 237 W.A.C. 221; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 716 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

Cook et al. v. Parcel, Mauro, Hultin & Spaanstra, P.C. (1997), 87 B.C.A.C. 97; 143 W.A.C. 97; 143 D.L.R.(4th) 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

Berg v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. (2000), 135 O.A.C. 135; 50 O.R.(3d) 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

Amchem Products Inc. et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897; 150 N.R. 321; 23 B.C.A.C. 1; 39 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 137].

Avenue Properties Ltd. v. First City Development Corp. (1986), 32 D.L.R.(4th) 40 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black, Vaughan, Interprovincial Inter-Insurer Interactions: Unifund v. I.C.B.C. (2002), 36 Can. Bus. L.J. 436, p. 444 [para. 100].

Castel, Jean-Gabriel and Walker, Janet, Canadian Conflict of Laws (5th Ed. 2002) (Looseleaf updated December 2002, Issue 3), p. 2.1 [paras. 58, 140].

Fortier, L. Yves, Delimiting the Spheres of Judicial and Arbitral Power: "Beware, My Lord, of Jealousy" (2001), 80 Can. Bar Rev. 143, p. 145 [para. 36].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Looseleaf Ed. 1997), (Updated 2002, release 1), vol. 1, pp. 13-4 to 13-25 [para. 50].

Sullivan, Ruth E., Interpreting the Territorial Limitations on the Provinces (1985), 7 Supreme Ct. L.R. 511, p. 531 [para. 50].

Tribe, Laurence H., American Constitutional Law (3rd Ed. 2000), vol. 1, p. 1292 [para. 74].

Watson, Garry D., and Au, Frank, Constitutional Limits on Service Ex Juris: Unanswered Questions from Morguard (2000), 23 Advocates' Q. 167, generally [para. 126].

Counsel:

Avon M. Mersey, Alan L.W. D'Silva, Michael Sobkin and Sophie Vlahakis, for the appellant;

Leah Price and Gerald George, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Fogler Rubinoff, Toronto, Ontario and Samis & Company, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 12, 2002, by McLachlin, C.J.C. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The court delivered its decision in both official languages on July 17, 2003, when the following opinions were filed:

Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci and LeBel, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 108;

Bastarache, J., dissenting (Major and Deschamps, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 109 to 141.

To continue reading

Request your trial
152 practice notes
  • British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., (2004) 199 B.C.A.C. 195 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • May 20, 2004
    ...289 ; 100 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1 ; 7 M.V.R.(3d) 202 , refd to. [para. 38]. Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63; 306 N.R. 201 ; 176 O.A.C. 1 ; 2003 SCC 40 , refd to. [para. 38]. R. v. Valente (1983), 145 D.L.R.(3d) 452 (Ont. C.A.), affd. (1985), 6......
  • British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., (2005) 218 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • June 8, 2005
    ...Hunt v. T & N plc - see Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée et al. Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63; 306 N.R. 201; 176 O.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 27]. Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re; Churchill Falls (Labr......
  • Seidel v. Telus Communications Inc., (2011) 301 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • May 12, 2010
    ...[2003] 1 S.C.R. 178; 301 N.R. 220; 2003 SCC 17, refd to. [paras. 23, 89]. Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63; 306 N.R. 201; 176 O.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 40, refd to. [para. Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 129; 286 N.R. 178......
  • British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., (2005) 339 N.R. 129 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • June 8, 2005
    ...Hunt v. T & N plc - see Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée et al. Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63; 306 N.R. 201; 176 O.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 27]. Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re; Churchill Falls (Labr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
92 cases
  • British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., (2004) 199 B.C.A.C. 195 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • May 20, 2004
    ...289 ; 100 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1 ; 7 M.V.R.(3d) 202 , refd to. [para. 38]. Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63; 306 N.R. 201 ; 176 O.A.C. 1 ; 2003 SCC 40 , refd to. [para. 38]. R. v. Valente (1983), 145 D.L.R.(3d) 452 (Ont. C.A.), affd. (1985), 6......
  • British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., (2005) 218 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • June 8, 2005
    ...Hunt v. T & N plc - see Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée et al. Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63; 306 N.R. 201; 176 O.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 27]. Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re; Churchill Falls (Labr......
  • Seidel v. Telus Communications Inc., (2011) 301 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • May 12, 2010
    ...[2003] 1 S.C.R. 178; 301 N.R. 220; 2003 SCC 17, refd to. [paras. 23, 89]. Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63; 306 N.R. 201; 176 O.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 40, refd to. [para. Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 129; 286 N.R. 178......
  • Unifund Assurance Co. v. ICBC, (2003) 306 N.R. 201 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • December 12, 2002
    ...Co. v. ICBC (2003), 306 N.R. 201 (SCC) 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: [2003] N.R. TBEd. JL.024 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 firm's commentaries
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 1 – 5, 2019)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 23, 2019
    ...Regulation, BC Reg. 33/2009, Opticians Regulation, BC Reg 118/2010, Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 40, Wadden v. College of Opticians of Ontario, (2001) 207 DLR (4th) 72, (Ont CA) Herman v. Goldman, Sloan, Nash and Haber LLP, 2019 ONCA 250 Keywords: C......
  • Top 5 Civil Appeals From The Court Of Appeal (July 2013)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 23, 2013
    ...dispute as to the underlying principles. As the Supreme Court explained in Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 40, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63: 1. The territorial limits on the scope of provincial legislative authority prevent the application of the law of a provin......
  • Financial Services Regulatory Authority Of Ontario Proposes Guidance For Crypto Custodians And Other Trust Corporations
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • August 23, 2023
    ...SCC 17. The Guidance does not reference a line of cases beginning with Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63 (Unifund), which considers the constitutional issue of whether there is a "real and substantial connection" between a particular actor and ......
  • Words Matter: Lessons From The Essilor Decision And Other Musings
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • June 18, 2019
    ...Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 (CanLII) at para. 31. 9 Code, supra note 3, s. 87. 10 Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 40 (CanLII), at para. 56. Also see: Ontario College of Pharmacists v. 1724665 Ontario Inc. (Global Pharmacy Canada), 2013 ONCA 381 (CanLII) at ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
50 books & journal articles
  • An Old Snail in a New Bottle? Waiver of Tort as An Independent Cause of Action
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 6-1, April 2010
    • April 1, 2010
    ...43 The Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, s. 92(13). 44 Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 40 at paras. 55–56 [Unifund]. 45 Ibid. at para. 56. 46 OSA, above note 1, s. 138.1 “responsible issuer.” It seems unlikely that Canadian courts ......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Constitutional Law. Fifth Edition Conclusion
    • August 3, 2017
    ...91 C.L.L.C. 14,006 .....................................383, 387−88, 391 Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63, 227 D.L.R. (4th) 402, 2003 SCC 40 ..........341−42, 343−47 United States of America v. Cotroni, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469, 96 N.R. 321, 98 C.......
  • Speaking the Class Action, Thinking the Class Action: A Discussion of Changing Trends in Quebec's Class Action Lexicon
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 6-1, April 2010
    • April 1, 2010
    ...43 The Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, s. 92(13). 44 Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 40 at paras. 55–56 [Unifund]. 45 Ibid. at para. 56. 46 OSA, above note 1, s. 138.1 “responsible issuer.” It seems unlikely that Canadian courts ......
  • Introduction
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 3-2, July 2006
    • July 1, 2006
    ...T&N plc, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289; Tolofson v. Jensen, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63, 2003 SCC 40; Beals, above note 19; British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2005 SCC 49; and Castillo v. Castillo, 2005 SCC 4 1 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT