Stephen Tick

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding that the respondent insureds were entitled to recover replacement costs under a property insurance policy.

The insureds' hotel was destroyed by fire, and they signed a contract for reconstruction before selling the property to a third party on the condition that the hotel would be rebuilt according to the contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the insureds had satisfied the policy requirement to effect replacement.

The appellant, a financial investment advisor, sold real estate units to his clients and received undisclosed commissions from the developer.

He was convicted of corruptly accepting a reward under s. 426(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, he argued that the offence required proof of a "corrupt bargain" between the giver and the taker.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the word "corruptly" in the context of secret commissions means secretly or without adequate and timely disclosure, and does not require a corrupt bargain with the giver.