5 total
The Court of Appeal upheld a life insurance policy, finding the insurer failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation.
The appellant insurer appealed a judgment declaring a life insurance policy valid, arguing fraudulent misrepresentation by the insured regarding a criminal conviction.
The policy had been in force for over five years, triggering an incontestability clause under the Insurance Act, requiring the insurer to prove fraud.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal and motion to admit fresh evidence.
While acknowledging the application judge erred in disregarding admissions of the conviction, the Court found this error did not alter the ultimate conclusion that the insurer failed to prove the misrepresentation was made with the intent required for civil fraud (knowledge or recklessness), concluding it was likely due to mistake or negligence.
The court dismissed a jurisdictional challenge because the Quebec-based defendant maintained a physical business presence in Ontario.
The defendant, Desjardins Global Asset Management Inc., brought a motion to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, to stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.
The court found that it had jurisdiction over Desjardins due to its physical presence and business operations in Ontario, distinguishing it from cases requiring a "real and substantial connection" analysis.
Regarding forum non conveniens, the court determined that Quebec was not "clearly more appropriate" than Ontario, as both forums were equally capable and convenient.
The motion was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; breach of contract claim was statute-barred as it was discoverable over two years prior.
The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that its claim for breach of contract was statute-barred.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the claim was discoverable when the appellant received an arborist report detailing the respondent's substandard work.
Because the action was commenced more than two years after the receipt of the report, the appeal was dismissed.
Leave granted to amend defence and assert adverse possession counterclaim.
The defendant sought leave to amend its statement of defence to assert adverse possession and add a counterclaim claiming ownership of disputed land.
The plaintiff argued the amendment constituted withdrawal of an admission because the original defence relied on acquiescence, which would defeat an adverse possession claim.
The court held that the original pleading did not clearly amount to an admission but assumed it might and applied the test for withdrawal of admissions.
The proposed amendment raised a triable issue, the defendant provided a reasonable explanation based on newly discovered aerial photographs supporting historical possession, and no non-compensable prejudice was established.
Leave to amend the pleading and assert the counterclaim was granted.
Appeal dismissed; plaintiff failed to act diligently to add parties before limitation period expired.
The plaintiff appealed a decision setting aside a Master's order that allowed her to add an independent contractor and a truck driver as defendants after the expiry of the limitation period.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to act diligently after learning of the independent contractor's involvement and did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay under section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002.
The court varied the costs order to reflect the proposed defendants' success on the motion.
