Court Cases Flashcards

Question

What are the facts about 'Morrow vs. Zhang'?

Answer 1

- Alberta introduced legislation to address: rising costs, increase in un/underinsured motorists - trial challenged constitutionally of $4k cap on minor and/or soft tissue injuries

Answer 2

Ruling 1: cap is discriminatory & struck down Ruling 2: appeal reverses original ruling (cap is upheld) - cap is designed to lower premiums for everyone - cap does not discriminate against minor injuries (cannot be appealed further)

Answer 3

- PIPEDA is Personal Information Protection & Electronic Documents Act - an ON couple complained of increase in property insurance rates because insurer used their credit score

Answer 4

Privacy Commissioner: use of credit score is acceptable - commissioner notes that the standard insurance form is deficient & misleading - consent must be meaningful (website said credit score may be used, but it was always used) - insurer should be explicit regarding its intent

Answer 5

- victim sustained severe complications from ankle injury in 2002 auto accident - sought catastrophic impairment designation - Aviva rejected cat impairment designation

Answer 6

pre-Ruling (DAC): - concluded there was marked impairment in daily living - an assessment of class 4 cat impairment was appropriate pre-Ruling (Arbitration): - DAC's conclusion affirmed by arbitration delegate (class 4 impairment upheld) Ruling 1 (Divisional Court): - judicial review requested by Aviva reversed prior decision - judge stated that delegate exceeded jurisdiction -> no cat impairment Ruling 2 (Appellate Court): - Divisional Court erred in 'standard of review' - standard should be 'reasonableness' -> class 4 cat impairment reinstated

Answer 7

- plaintiff had leg amputated following auto accident as passenger - sought classification as catastrophe impaired

Answer 8

Ruling 1: No cat impairment - SABS does not explicitly state that physical & mental impairment can be summed - SABS = Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule Ruling 2: allowed cat impairment - combining physical & mental %'s seemed a more reasonable & mordern interpretation - more would qualify for cat impairment but still rare -> no material impact on AA (availability/affordability) of insurance

Answer 9

20-year old woman catastrophically injured in head-on collision due to icy road in Sudbury Ontario

Answer 10

Ruling 1: - city was liable for plaintiff's injuries - salting & plowing occurred but were not sufficient given the storm conditions Ruling 2: - upheld: court of appeal rejected defendant's "statutory defense" and upheld trial judge decision - city is expected to adapt to conditions, not just blindly follow procedures

Answer 11

insured had a fire on premises causing chemicals to overflow and contaminate neighboring property

Answer 12

Ruling 1: chambers judge held for insured (insurer must defend) - policy terms were ambiguous - should not exclude contamination caused by fire Ruling 2: insurer's appeal allowed no duty to defend - third party claims were for contamination not for fire thus excluded from coverage

Answer 13

- Mr. Saadati sustained injuries in an auto accident when his vehicle was hit by Mr. Moorhead's vehicle - accident occurred on July 5, 2005

Answer 14

Ruling 1: - physical injury claim: rejected by trial judge - mental injury claim: -> evidence from plaintiff's expert psychologist not enough to establish psychological injury -> but testimony of Mr. Saadati's family and friends was sufficient proof of psychological injury -> judge awards $100,000 in non-pecuniary damages Ruling 2: - trial judge's decision overtuned by BC Court of Appeal - Mr. Saadati had not demonstrated a medically recognized psychiatric or psychological injury Ruling 3: - Supreme Court of Canada:unanimously reversed the BC Court of Appeal (June 2017) - Reason: recovery for mental illness depends on 5 criteria: -> duty of care (defendant had a duty to drive safely) -> breach of duty of care -> legal causal relationship -> factual causal relationship -> establishment that the mental injury is serious & prolonged, and rises above ordinary anxieties & fears

Answer 15

Initial Injury: - the insured Tomec was hit by a vehicle as a pedestrian 9/12/2008 - her injuries were serious but not catastrophic - she was therefore granted 104 weeks of ACB (Attendant Care Benefits) and HK (House Keeping) - Economical stopped benefits on 9/12/2010 Deteriorating Condition: - Economical reclassified her as CAT (catastrophically impaired) in May 2015 - CAT impairment removes the time limit for ACB and HK - but Economical denied benefits because the 2-year statutory time limit for making a claim had expired - Economical argued the clock started on 9/12/2010

Answer 16

Ruling 1: - the LAT (License Appeal Tribunal) and the Ontario Divisional Court concluded discoverability does not apply - Tomec did not apply for extended benefits by 9/12/2012 - therefore Tomec cannot apply for or receive extended benefits Ruling 2: - Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that discoverability did apply to the limitation period - the orders of LAT and Divisional Court were set aside -> Reasoning: it would be absurd to expect Tomec to apply for extended benefits by 9/12/2012 because Economical didn't even classify her as eligible for extended benefits until May 2015

Answer 17

Puporse test: was the car being used in a normal way?

Answer 18

Causality test: was there a link possibly indirect b/w use of car and shooting?

Answer 19

Applicability to Ontario: - no strictly applicable in Ontario - in Ontario, the policy wording is damage 'CAUSED BY' used of car

Answer 20

What is the 'but for' causation test? - would result have occurred but for act/omission of defendant? - if yes: defendant not liable/if no: defendant liable

Answer 21

What is the 'material contribution' test? - requires that the negligent action materially contributed to the risk of harm - less rigorous than the 'but for' test 2 requirements before 'material contribution' test can be applied: - the 'but for' test can't establish causation - accident must be reasonably foreseeable

Answer 22

insurer disputes On's Fire Insurance Act - the Act required certain statutory conditions for fire policies in ON

Answer 23

- is ON Fire Act ULTRA VIRES? (relates to regulation of trade, which is federal) - insurer claims province can't legislate to deprive federally incorporated insurer of status & capacity

Answer 24

Ruling-JCPC on issue 1: - ON Fire Act is INTRA VIRES Reason: - federal government can't regulate an insurer operating in a single province - such insurance contracts are INTRA-provincial and are not covered by federal trade regulations - trade means INTER-provincial Ruling-JCPC on issue 2: - status&capacity unaffected - insurers are all treated equally, regardless of where they were incorporated

Answer 25

(1910) the Federal Insurance Act required a Federal license of all insurers except if incorporated by province and operating solely in province

Answer 26

is this version of the Federal Insurance Act 'intra vires'

Answer 27

Ruling-JCPC: - licensing provisions are 'ultra vires': -> regulation of trade/commerce didn't extend to a licensing system of a particular trade -> trespasses on provincial authority in civil rights (not covered by Federal power to legislate for Peace, Order, Good Government)

Answer 28

Implication Canada: - a provincial insurer has the capacity, but not the right to operate in another province (need permission from other province) - federal insurer has the capacity and the right to operate in another province Implication Foreign: - federal government can require a federal license for a foreign insurer (even if the foreign insurer is operating in only 1 province)

Answer 29

BC legislature establishes compulsory public auto insurance plan - legislature refuses license renewal of private insurers - insurers sue

Answer 30

insurers claimed BC legislation is ULTRA VIRES for 2 reasons: - it relates to regulation of trade, which is federal - province can't legislate to deprive federally incorporated insurer of status & capacity

Answer 31

BC legislature acted within its powers (legislation is INTRA VIRES)

Answer 32

- Glynn was injured in auto accident - was reimbursed by other driver's insurer including medical - Glynn sued to double-recover medical from own insurer

Answer 33

does Glynn's insurer have right to subrogation (can Glynn's insurer claim benefits from guiltyparty's payment to prevent double-recovery by Glynn

Answer 34

Ruling 1: - for insured: Glynn gets double-recovery Ruling 2: - subrogation concept applies because auto policy is contract of indemnity - so Glynn's insurer does not have to pay

Answer 35

- customer relied on MPIC - there was no mention of UIM(underinsured motorist) coverage on application or insurance certificate

Answer 36

- issue 1: is a government insurer responsible for informing customers of available coverages? - issue 2: what is the extent of the government's liability should it fail to do so?

Answer 37

Ruling 1: judge finds for plaintiff Ruling 2: overturned on appeal Ruling 3: SCC reinstates original ruling final interpretation: - both private agents and government institutions owe a duty of care - but private agents owe a higher duty-of-care because of their promised expertise

Answer 38

- Guardian rejected a settlement that was less than the policy limit - subsequent jury award greater than policy limit - insured sued insurer for excess amount of award above policy limit

Answer 39

arguments for absolute liability: - avoids: determining whether 1st offer was reasonable - lowers: probability of insurer gambling with insured's money - insurer, insured: have different monetary interests

Answer 40

Ruling 1: - insurer liable under all standards - finds in favor of insured Ruling (BC cases): - reject absolute liability - reason: relationship between insurer & insured not fiduciary (montetary interests differ)

Answer 41

standard of absolute liability: - if settlement possible but rejected by insurer then insurer is liable for all costs even in excess of policy limit different possible standards of liability: - absolute liability - liability for not acting reasonably - liability for bad faith (builds on lack of reasonableness)

Answer 42

- Fenn vs. City of Peterborough (only cases where award exceeded cap) - Lindal vs. Lindal (commented on inflation adjustment) - ter Neuzen vs. Korn (cap became rule of law vs. just a judicial policy directive)

Answer 43

Lee severely injured - jury at 1st trial awarded 2m, but judge reduced to 294k - Lee appealed to BCCA

Answer 44

violates charter of rights - cap discriminates against the seriously injured ignores the importance of juries because judge overturned jury award inconsistent - cap is inconsistent with current community values - communities are now more accepting of liabilities

Answer 45

Ruling 2: - BCCA was sympathetic but couldn't overturn the original Supreme Court ruling on Trilogy - also, non-pecuniary damages not meant to be compensatory Supreme Court declined to hear a further appeal, cap remains in effect well into the future&the original rationale still considered valid

Court Cases Flashcards

(69 cards)