David P. Church

The appellant challenged a provincial appellate ruling that reversed leave to appeal an arbitral award under s. 31 of the Arbitration Act.

The dispute concerned whether an option to renew was validly exercised by letter under a commercial agreement.

The appellate court held no pure question of law arose from the arbitrator’s interpretation, so the statutory leave threshold was not met.

The Court dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia.

The appellant, an investor who lost money when a registered mortgage broker used funds for unauthorized purposes, brought a class action against the Registrar of Mortgage Brokers for negligence.

The appellant alleged the Registrar should have acted sooner to suspend the broker's licence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Registrar did not owe a private law duty of care to the investors.

Applying the Anns test, the Court found insufficient proximity between the Registrar and the investors, as the governing statute imposed a duty to the public as a whole, not to individual investors.

Furthermore, policy considerations, including the spectre of indeterminate liability and the quasi-judicial nature of the Registrar's decisions, negated any prima facie duty of care.

The appellant, a bus driver, was sued for sexual battery, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from alleged nonconsensual sexual activity.

He sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurance provider had a duty to defend him.

The Supreme Court of Canada, relying on its concurrent decision in Scalera, held that the insurer had no duty to defend.

The Court found that the inherently harmful nature of nonconsensual sexual activity meant any resulting injuries must be deemed intentional, thus falling under the policy's intentional act exclusion.

The Court also rejected the argument that an explicit exclusion for sexual torts in an optional day care endorsement implied coverage under the general policy.

The appellant sued Quebec asbestos companies in British Columbia for damages related to asbestos exposure.

He sought discovery of documents.

The respondents refused, citing the Quebec Business Concerns Records Act, which prohibits removing business documents from Quebec pursuant to foreign judicial orders.

The BC courts declined to rule on the constitutionality of the Quebec statute and dismissed the application to compel production.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the BC courts and the SCC had jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of the Quebec statute.

Applying the principles from Morguard, the Court held that the Quebec blocking statute was constitutionally inapplicable to proceedings in other provinces because it offended the principles of order and fairness inherent in the Canadian federation.

The appellant insurers issued an aviation insurance policy to a commercial air carrier.

The carrier misrepresented its accident record and the number of passenger seats on the aircraft.

The aircraft subsequently crashed, killing all passengers.

The families of the deceased passengers sought to recover from the insurers under a statutory right of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insurers were entitled to rely on the carrier's representation regarding the number of passenger seats.

Because the carrier violated this term, the policy was void ab initio against the carrier.

As the families' statutory right of action was subject to the same equities as the insurers could assert against the carrier, the families could not recover.

The appeal was allowed.