Cailyn Prins

The appellant, Ms. Wong, appealed a lower court's finding of civil fraud against her, which arose from her misrepresentation to Aviva Insurance Company of Canada regarding who was driving during a motor vehicle accident.

The original application sought a declaration that Aviva owed her a defence, which was denied due to policy breach and civil fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that Aviva had suffered a real, albeit unquantified, loss due to Ms. Wong's actions, specifically in terms of its ability to defend the main action, thereby satisfying the loss element of civil fraud.

The applicant sought a declaration of insurance coverage and relief from forfeiture after the respondent insurer denied coverage due to the applicant's misrepresentation and civil fraud regarding a motor vehicle accident.

The court found the applicant breached her insurance contract and committed civil fraud by falsely representing herself as the driver and lying under oath.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application, denying relief from forfeiture due to the fraudulent conduct and the gravity of the breach.

The applicant, Victoria Wong, sought a declaration that Aviva Insurance Company of Canada owed her a defence and indemnity under an insurance policy following a motor vehicle accident.

Aviva denied coverage, alleging breach of contract and civil fraud, stemming from Wong's misrepresentation that her mother, Chang Tieu, was driving the vehicle, and their subsequent collusion, including Tieu's false testimony under oath during discovery, assisted by Wong.

Wong also sought relief from forfeiture.

Aviva brought a cross-application to be added as a Statutory Third Party.

The court found that Wong breached her insurance contract and committed civil fraud, and that her conduct barred her from relief from forfeiture.

Consequently, Wong's application was dismissed, and Aviva's cross-application to be added as a Statutory Third Party was granted.

The appellant, Gamma Construction Ltd., appealed a lower court's decision regarding causation under the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's conclusion that causation was not made out, applying the Amos v. The Insurance Corp. of British Columbia test.

The court found that the use of the automobile, as it related to the injuries, was merely incidental or fortuitous, and therefore, the causation finding was unassailable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, Polchil Homes Ltd., sought relief under the Condominium Act for oppression by the respondent condominium corporation, alleging unreasonable delay in renovation approval and unlawful lockout from its unit.

The applicant also sought damages under the Human Rights Code based on assigned claims from its principal and her fiancé.

The court dismissed the Human Rights Code claim, finding that such claims cannot be assigned to a corporation for civil proceedings.

The court also dismissed the claim regarding renovation approval delay, finding no oppressive conduct.

However, the court found that the corporation's act of locking the applicant out of its unit for 18 days was oppressive and unlawful.

As a remedy for this oppression, the court awarded $10,000 in general damages to the applicant and ordered the removal of $7,468.27 in legal fees charged back to the applicant's ledger by the corporation.