HIGHLIGHTS
A Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has concluded that a clause in a farm insurance policy which excludes coverage for "business pursuits" other than farming prevented a farmer who bred and sold horses from being covered for a claim for personal injuries sustained by a horse buyer to whom he provided horse riding lessons. The Court held that providing horse riding lessons did not fall within the definition of "farming" under the policy. [Editor's Note: The results of this decision seem harsh; however the lesson to farmers is clear. If farmers are involved in businesses other than farming, they must be careful to ensure that they obtain proper insurance coverage for both farming and other business activities.]. (Burch v. Intact Insurance Co., CALN/2014-021, [2014] A.J. No. 540, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench)
A Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Small Claims Court) has considered the doctrine of emblements, which permits tenants to enter on land following the termination of a lease for the purpose of harvesting crops planted by the tenant on the land. In this case, the Court held that a tenant could not rely on the doctrine, because when the tenant planted a winter crop of triticale in the fall of 2010, the farmer had no "reasonable expectation" that he would be able to lease the land in 2011, only a "hope" that he might be able to outbid other potential tenants for the land. (Vieraitis v. Fitzgerald, CALN/2014-022, [2014] O.J. No. 2596, Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
To view the full article please click here.
Originally published in LexisNexis Agricultural Law NetLetter - June 2014
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.