Arnold Brian Schwisberg

The plaintiffs, Dung Truong and Thuan Nguyen, sued their insurer for payment of six pieces of jewellery allegedly stolen in Vietnam.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership, the theft occurred, or the value of the loss, and that the jewellery was contraband.

The court found that the insurance contract did not require re-proving ownership post-loss, and that the plaintiffs had an insurable interest.

The court also found the theft occurred as described and rejected the "contraband" defence.

The court awarded the plaintiffs the insured value of the jewellery and punitive damages, finding the insurer's denial based on an unreasonable interpretation of the contract constituted bad faith.

Constitutional appeal concerning whether a provincial liquor-control provision limiting possession of non-provincially sourced alcohol violated s. 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court held that s. 121 bars laws that in essence and primary purpose restrict interprovincial trade like tariffs, but does not invalidate laws whose trade impacts are incidental to broader regulatory objectives.

It also held that lower courts cannot depart from binding precedent absent genuinely transformative legal developments or new social and legislative facts.

Applying that framework, the impugned provision's main purpose was provincial control of liquor distribution and use, not trade restriction.

The appeal was allowed and the provision was upheld.

Following a successful summary judgment motion by the defendant dismissing claims against it, the court determined the appropriate costs awards relating to both the summary judgment motion and an earlier procedural motion for directions under rule 34.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the plaintiffs were successful on the earlier procedural motion and awarded them partial indemnity costs of $10,000.

However, the defendant was entirely successful on the summary judgment motion and was entitled to partial indemnity costs.

After considering proportionality, reasonableness, and the complexity of the litigation, the court reduced the defendant’s claimed fees and fixed total costs for the summary judgment motion at $129,153.32.

After setting off the $10,000 owed to the plaintiffs for the procedural motion, the court ordered two plaintiffs to pay the defendant $119,153.32 in costs.