Nicolas M. Rouleau

The deceased held an accidental death insurance policy with the appellant insurer that paid $1 million if he died in a common carrier accident.

The insurer claimed the deceased cancelled the policy over the phone in 1998.

After the deceased died in a plane crash in 2004, his estate and children sued, arguing the insurer cancelled the policy by mistake.

The trial judge admitted statements made by the deceased to his family after 1998 indicating his belief that the policy was still in effect under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule.

The jury found for the plaintiffs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in using the state of mind exception to prove past acts, but upheld the admission of the statements under the principled approach to hearsay due to sufficient threshold reliability.

The Court also held that s. 13 of the Evidence Act did not require corroboration for the children's testimony as they claimed as beneficiaries, not heirs.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged a criminal charge under s. 127(1) for allegedly disobeying an injunction, arguing Ontario civil contempt rules provided an express alternative mode of proceeding.

The majority held the statutory exception applies only where legislation provides the legal foundation for contempt, defines contempt circumstances, and provides punishment or procedure.

The Court found Rules 60.11 and 60.12 are procedurally detailed but remain dependent on common law substratum for legal foundation and contempt definition.

Accordingly, the exception was not triggered and prosecution under s. 127(1) could proceed.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent concluding the rules themselves constituted an express legislative mode of proceeding.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for damages against the respondent municipality.

The appellant and a friend had driven down a dead-end rural road, got stuck on a hydro right-of-way, and abandoned their vehicle in extreme cold, resulting in severe frostbite injuries.

The appellants argued the municipality breached its standard of care by failing to post 'No Exit' and checkerboard signs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the road conditions were not potentially dangerous to reasonable drivers and that the appellants would have ignored the signs regardless.

The appeal was dismissed.