André Legrand

On an appeal from Quebec, the Court addressed whether a fatal injury suffered when a tree fell onto a vehicle was damage caused by an automobile under the provincial no-fault automobile insurance statute.

The Court reaffirmed a broad, remedial interpretation of the statute and held that a traditional fault-based causation analysis does not govern this scheme.

It concluded that use of a vehicle as a means of transportation is sufficient at minimum to engage the statutory definition of accident, even where the vehicle’s role is not active.

Because the claim fell within the statutory scheme, the civil action in damages was barred and compensation had to be sought through the public insurer.

The appellate judgment was set aside and the dismissal of the action was restored.

Domtar purchased a recovery boiler from C.E. (now ABB and Alstom).

The boiler's superheater developed leaks and cracks due to the use of H-style tie welds.

Domtar replaced the superheater and sued C.E. for latent defects and breach of the duty to inform.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the excessive cracking constituted a latent defect.

As a manufacturer, C.E. was presumed to know of the defect and failed to rebut this presumption, rendering its limitation of liability clause inapplicable.

C.E. was held liable for the replacement costs.

The Court also dismissed the appeals regarding the insurers, finding Chubb liable on its performance bond and Arkwright not liable due to a latent defect exclusion clause.

Domtar purchased a recovery boiler from C.E. (now ABB and Alstom).

The boiler's superheater developed leaks and cracks due to the use of H-style tie welds.

Domtar replaced the superheater and sued C.E. for latent defects and breach of the duty to inform.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the excessive cracking constituted a latent defect.

As a manufacturer, C.E. was presumed to know of the defect and failed to rebut this presumption, rendering its limitation of liability clause inapplicable.

C.E. was held liable for the replacement costs.

The Court also dismissed the appeals regarding the insurers, finding Chubb liable on its performance bond and Arkwright not liable due to a latent defect exclusion clause.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The delay was due to settlement negotiations, a series of events, and the applicant's condition.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the applicant did not indicate an intention to appeal within the deadline.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the extension, finding that the applicant should not be deprived of the right to seek leave solely because of the additional delay, and dismissed the respondent's application for security for costs.