2 total
The Court of Appeal set aside an order releasing insurance proceeds, remitting the matter to be heard alongside a related will validity challenge.
The appellant appealed an order directing insurance proceeds to be paid out of court to the Estate of Walter Ardis.
The appeal raised two main issues: the application judge's refusal to adjourn the insurance proceeds application to be heard concurrently with a related will validity application, and the determination of insurable interest under the insurance contract.
The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred by proceeding with the insurance proceeds application while the validity of the underlying will was still in dispute, and by failing to properly consider the Estate of Margaret Ardis's potential interest in the insurance proceeds, particularly concerning the timing of her death relative to the fire and her interest in the house's contents.
The appeal was allowed, the order set aside, and the matter remitted for a joint hearing of both applications.
Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the respondent trucking company is federally regulated.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his former employer, a trucking company.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the employer appeared to be a federally-regulated undertaking.
The respondents confirmed they engage in interprovincial and international transportation, which the applicant did not dispute.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as interprovincial transportation falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
The respondents' request for legal costs was also denied, as the Tribunal lacks the power to award costs.
