Vytlingam v. Farmer et al., (2007) 230 O.A.C. 364 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 19, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 230 O.A.C. 364 (SCC);2007 SCC 46;368 NR 251;160 ACWS (2d) 1058;87 OR (3d) 400;230 OAC 364;EYB 2007-124881;JE 2007-1976;[2007] SCJ No 46 (QL);53 CCLI (4th) 1;52 MVR (5th) 1;286 DLR (4th) 577;[2007] 3 SCR 373

Vytlingam v. Farmer (2007), 230 O.A.C. 364 (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: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.064

Citadel General Assurance Company (appellant) v. Michael Vytlingam by his Litigation Guardian, Chandra Vytlingam, Chandra Vytlingam and Suzana Vytlingam (respondents) and Insurance Bureau of Canada (intervenor)

(31083; 2007 SCC 46; 2007 CSC 46)

Indexed As: Vytlingam v. Farmer et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

October 19, 2007.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued for "inadequately insured motorist" benefits under the OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage endorsement (Ontario) contained in an automobile insurance policy issued by their insurer. The insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the action.

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed the insurer's motion and ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to the damages claimed. Citadel appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Juriansz, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 199 O.A.C. 136, dismissed the appeal. The insurer appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

Insurance - Topic 5016

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Liability coverage - "Use or operation" of motor vehicle - Farmer used his automobile to transport boulders to the top of an overpass - Upon arrival, he and a friend got out of the automobile and threw the boulders onto the highway below - One boulder hit the plaintiff family's vehicle - Family members were injured - They received no-fault statutory benefits from their insurer - The family then sued the insurer for "inadequately insured motorist" benefits under the OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage endorsement (Ontario) - That endorsement required the insurer to indemnify the insured for the amount that the insured was legally entitled to recover from an "inadequately insured motorist" in respect of a bodily injury or death "arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the family - There had to be an unbroken chain of causation linking the conduct of the motorist as a motorist to the injuries in respect of which the claim was made - The boulder throwing was an independent act which broke the chain of causation - See paragraphs 1 to 40.

Cases Noticed:

Amos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 405; 186 N.R. 150; 63 B.C.A.C. 1; 104 W.A.C. 1, dist. [para. 4].

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. 4].

Paulus v. Robinson (1991), 7 B.C.A.C. 147; 15 W.A.C. 147; 60 B.C.L.R.(2d) 116 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1992] 3 S.C.R. vii; 145 N.R. 389; 21 B.C.A.C. 160; 37 W.A.C. 160, refd to. [para. 8].

Thacker v. Lavell (1992), 40 M.V.R.(2d) 306 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Jove v. Paialunga Estate (1997), 95 B.C.A.C. 228; 154 W.A.C. 228; 42 B.C.L.R(3d) 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Continental Stress Relieving Services Ltd. et al. v. Canada West Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (1998), 221 A.R. 160; 1998 ABQB 387, refd to. [para. 8].

Holdbrook et al. v. Emeneau et al. (2000), 204 N.S.R.(2d) 96; 639 A.P.R. 96; 2000 NSCA 48, refd to. [para. 8].

Tench v. Erskine et al. (2006), 244 N.S.R.(2d) 55; 774 A.P.R. 55; 2006 NSSC 115, refd to. [para. 8].

Vijeyekumar v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1999), 122 O.A.C. 29; 44 O.R.(3d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Saharkhiz v. Underwriters, Lloyd's London (1999), 102 O.T.C. 19; 46 O.R.(3d) 154 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Herbison v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (2005), 198 O.A.C. 257; 76 O.R.(3d) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Collier v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1995), 54 B.C.A.C. 81; 88 W.A.C. 81; 100 B.C.L.R.(2d) 201 (C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

Greenhalgh v. ING Halifax Insurance Co. (2004), 190 O.A.C. 64; 72 O.R.(3d) 338 (C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

Chisholm v. Liberty Mutual Group (2002), 163 O.A.C. 129; 60 O.R.(3d) 776 (C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

Jenkins v. Zurich Insurance Canada (1997), 193 N.B.R.(2d) 135; 493 A.P.R. 135 (C.A.), consd. [para. 27].

AXA Insurance v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. et al. (2004), 191 O.A.C. 378; 73 O.R.(3d) 391 (C.A.), consd. [para. 28].

Law, Union & Rock Insurance Co. v. Moore's Taxi Ltd., [1960] S.C.R. 80, consd. [para. 29].

Lefor v. McClure et al. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 160; 49 O.R.(3d) 557 (C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

Wu v. Malamas (1985), 67 B.C.L.R. 105 (C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

Legault v. Compagnie d'assurance générale de commerce (1967), 65 D.L.R.(2d) 230 (Que. Q.B.), consd. [para. 29].

Stevenson v. Reliance Petroleum Ltd., [1956] S.C.R. 936, consd. [para. 30].

Chan v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1996), 69 B.C.A.C. 187; 113 W.A.C. 187; [1996] 4 W.W.R. 734 (C.A.), consd. [para. 31].

Counsel:

Geoffrey D.E. Adair, Q.C., for the appellant;

Stanley C. Tessis and Melanie C. Malach, for the respondents;

Alan L.W. D'Silva, Danielle K. Royal and Ellen Snow, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Adair Morse, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Laxton Glass, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents;

Stikeman Elliott, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on December 11, 2006, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The following judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on October 19, 2007, by Binnie, J.