René Vallerand

The appellant's spouse disappeared in 2008.

In 2016, the appellant obtained a declaratory judgment of death.

The respondent life insurance company subsequently applied to annul the judgment, presenting evidence that the spouse was alive and living in Iran, but failed to serve the spouse with the application.

The trial judge annulled the declaratory judgment of death, finding on a balance of probabilities that the spouse had 'returned' within the meaning of the Civil Code of Québec.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the failure to serve the spouse was a procedural defect, it did not warrant dismissal of the application as it caused no prejudice.

The Court further held that the 'return' of a person declared dead can be established by any contemporaneous manifestation that they are alive, proved on a balance of probabilities, without requiring their physical return or a higher standard of certainty.

The respondent's husband died when a bomb he was attempting to plant exploded.

The respondent claimed the $50,000 life insurance indemnity as the designated beneficiary.

The insurer refused to pay, arguing that the insured's death during the commission of a crime triggered a public order exception preventing recovery.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insured's act was not an 'intentional fault' because he did not intend to cause his own death.

Furthermore, while the public order principle that 'no one may profit from their own crime' exists in Quebec civil law, it cannot be set up against an innocent third-party beneficiary.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to the insurance proceeds.

The respondent was imprisoned for failing to pay fines under the Quebec Highway Safety Code.

He sought authorization to bring a class action against the government for damages, alleging the sentencing provisions violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Superior Court denied authorization, finding no serious colour of right, but the Court of Appeal reversed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that an action for damages under s. 24(1) of the Charter generally cannot be coupled with a declaratory action for invalidity under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Superior Court judge reasonably exercised his discretion to deny authorization.