Young v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, (2015) 473 Sask.R. 150 (PC)

• Judge: Kovatch, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 30, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2015), 473 Sask.R. 150 (PC);2015 SKPC 56

Young v. SGI (2015), 473 Sask.R. 150 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.007

Bryan Scott Young v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI)

(File No. 106/13; 2015 SKPC 56)

Indexed As: Young v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Civil Division

Kovatch, P.C.J.

April 30, 2015.

Summary:

Nagel's licence was suspended and he allowed the plates on his vehicle to expire. He transferred ownership of the vehicle to his roommate, Young, for a nominal consideration, so that Young could use the vehicle while Nagel could not. A certificate of registration was issued to Young. Young had an accident. The vehicle was a total loss. Saskatchewan Government Insurance denied coverage on the basis that Young had no financial (insurable) interest in the vehicle. Young sued.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court allowed the action, granting judgment for Young in the appraised amount of loss.

Insurance - Topic 2200

Insurable interest - General - [See Insurance - Topic 3706 ].

Insurance - Topic 3706

Automobile insurance - General - Requirement of insurable interest - Nagel's licence was suspended and he allowed the plates on his vehicle to expire - He transferred ownership of the vehicle to his roommate, Young, for a nominal consideration, so that Young could use the vehicle while Nagel could not - A certificate of registration was issued to Young - Young had an accident - The vehicle was a total loss - Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) denied coverage on the basis that Young had no financial (insurable) interest in the vehicle - Young sued - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court allowed the action, granting judgment for Young in the appraised amount of loss - When Young registered the vehicle, he obtained a certificate of insurance confirming his statutory entitlement to insurance coverage - Nothing in the legislation referred to the concept of insurable interest - SGI could not use a non-statutory policy guideline to defeat or override Young's statutory entitlement - Further, Young had a relation or concern with the vehicle and was prejudiced by its loss - He had an insurable interest - SGI was wrong to deny coverage.

Cases Noticed:

Ainsley Financial Corp. et al. v. Ontario Securities Commission et al. (1994), 77 O.A.C. 155; 121 D.L.R.(4th) 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Skyline Roofing Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) et al. (2001), 292 A.R. 86; 2001 ABQB 624, refd to. [para. 14].

Cutting Edge Foods Inc. (Bankrupt), Re (2008), 456 A.R. 40; 2008 ABQB 340, refd to. [para. 14].

Climenhaga v. Canada (Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy) - see Cutting Edge Foods Inc. (Bankrupt), Re.

Fink v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (1993), 115 Sask.R. 174 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 16].

Kosmopoulos et al. v. Constitution Insurance Co. of Canada et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 2; 74 N.R. 360; 21 O.A.C. 4, folld. [para. 16].

Counsel:

Ken Cornea, for the plaintiff;

Don Harmon, for the defendant.

This action was heard at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, by Kovatch, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 30, 2015.