Émile Colas

The appellants, hypothecary creditors, sought to recover under a fire insurance policy containing a standard mortgage clause after the insured property was destroyed by arson.

The insurers refused to pay, arguing the policy was void ab initio due to misrepresentations by the hypothecary debtor when purchasing the policy.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the standard mortgage clause creates a separate and distinct contract between the insurers and the hypothecary creditors.

This independent contract cannot be invalidated by any act, neglect, omission, or misrepresentation of the hypothecary debtor, whether occurring at the inception of the policy or subsequently.

The appeal was allowed.

Following the death of their mother, two children refused to live with their father and repeatedly ran away to live with their aunt and uncle.

The aunt and uncle sought custody of the children.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while there was no serious cause to deprive the father of his parental authority under art. 654 C.C.Q., the paramount consideration under art. 30 C.C.L.C. is the child's interest.

The Court awarded custody to the aunt and uncle, finding that returning the children to their father would compromise their development, but preserved the father's parental authority and granted him visiting rights.

The applicant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that dismissed its application to intervene in a reference ordered by the Government of Quebec.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal, holding that the decision of the Court of Appeal is not subject to appeal under the relevant legislation.