Scott Alexander Campbell

The appeal concerned whether future Canada Pension Plan disability benefits fall within the SEF 44 Endorsement deduction for amounts recoverable under a policy of insurance providing disability benefits.

The Court held the endorsement language is unambiguous and refers to private insurance policies, not mandatory statutory schemes like the Canada Pension Plan.

It rejected reliance on collateral-benefit jurisprudence from distinct statutory and tort contexts to alter the contract’s ordinary meaning.

The appeal was allowed and CPP disability benefits were held non-deductible from amounts payable under the endorsement.

A four-year-old child suffered catastrophic injuries after running into the path of an empty school bus.

A jury found no negligence by the driver, but the provincial appellate court ordered a new trial based on concerns that jury instructions on right-of-way rules improperly suggested fault by the child.

The Court held the instructions were legally proper when read as a whole and were directed to the driver's standard of care, not the child's liability.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal dismissed, and the original trial judgment was restored.

The respondent was injured when a spider rope, left secured to a guardrail by the appellant's employees, was released by an unknown vandal and struck her car on the highway below.

The trial judge found the appellant liable in negligence for failing to meet industry standards to prevent tampering.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while a duty of care was owed, the trial judge erred in finding a breach of the standard of care.

The intervening act of vandalism was not reasonably foreseeable given the lack of prior incidents and the location of the work.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.