Canada: Insurance Case Law Roundup - March 19, 2010

The last few weeks of 2009 saw the release of four interesting decisions, from various levels of Canadian courts, on important insurance law matters. While the decisions were not overtly related to each other, each was noteworthy in its own right, and is summarized below.

1. Regulatory Jurisdiction
Royal Bank of Canada v. Mujagic
[2009] O.J. No. 4891 (Ont. S.C.J.)

In this case, the plaintiff Royal Bank (RBC) sought to enforce its mortgage rights against the defendants by way of summary judgment. While the defendants did not dispute that the mortgage was valid and in default, they argued, among other things, that the plaintiff and third party, RBC Insurance, negligently misrepresented the nature and quality of insurance promoted at the plaintiff's branch. Further, the defendants alleged that RBC and RBC Insurance violated legal requirements regarding the provision of insurance products, as the plaintiffs had not obtained the applicable licence.

The defendants were insured under a group disability policy provided by a third party, Canada Life. The beneficiary of the policy was the plaintiff, RBC. An employee of RBC took the application from Mr. Mujagic for coverage and coverage was instantaneously provided on the transmission of the application to either RBC Insurance or Canada Life. A brochure representing the policy of insurance, printed with the logo and name of RBC on the front and back covers was also provided to the defendants. RBC Insurance, meanwhile, administered a database of insured persons under the group policy and had responsibility for answering questions and providing information to those insured.

At issue was whether Ontario's insurance scheme applied to banks in the promotion and provision of insurance products. While the Supreme Court of Canada has found that a province's insurance regime applies to federally chartered banks (see Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3), Ontario has yet to enact enabling legislation specifically applying the provincial insurance scheme to such banks. Despite this fact, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found "any person who does certain business activities" to be "bound by the provisions of the scheme." Accordingly, if RBC's or RBC Insurance's activities met the definition of "agent" under the Insurance Act (Ontario) or "insurance broker" under the Registered Insurance Brokers Act, respectively, the parties would be governed by the respective statute.

Section 1 of the Insurance Act defines "agent" to include a person that "[s]olicits insurance on behalf of an insurer or transmits, for a person other than .itself, an application for, or a policy of insurance to or from such insurer, or offers or assumes to act in the negotiation of such insurance or in negotiating its continuance or renewal with such insurer". Ultimately, the Court found that there was evidence suggesting that RBC solicited a policy of insurance and transmitted it to an insurer within the meaning of section 1 of the Insurance Act.

Meanwhile, the Registered Insurance Brokers Act defines "insurance broker" to include those that act or aid "in any manner in soliciting, negotiating or procuring the making of any contract of insurance" or that examine, appraise, review or evaluate "any insurance policy, plan or program" or make recommendations or provide advice with regard to the above. On this point, the Court found that there was evidence that RBC Insurance "offered or assumed to act in the negotiation" in insurance within the meaning of the Registered Insurance Brokers Act.

As such, the Court found that factual issues were raised with respect to a potential breach of the Ontario insurance scheme, which raised triable issues. The Court thus dismissed the motion for summary judgment.

2. Policy Interpretation - Fire Insurance
Hum v. Grain Insurance & Guarantee Co.
2009 ABQB 714 (Alta. Q.B.)

In this case from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, the applicants sought coverage as mortgagees under a standard mortgage clause in a fire insurance policy (the Policy). The Policy was issued to an insured who was not a party to the proceedings (presumably the mortgagor). The insured property was damaged in a November 2007 fire, which was deliberately set by the insured's tenant.

The Standard Mortgage Clause of the Policy stated that insurance would be in force as to the interest of the mortgagee "notwithstanding any act, neglect, omission or misrepresentation attributable to the mortgagor, owner or occupant of the property insured.". The Standard Mortgage Clause specifically stated that it would supersede any conflicting provisions but only as to the interest of the mortgagee. The Policy, however, also contained an endorsement excluding loss resulting from vandalism or criminal acts caused by tenants.

The insurer denied coverage to the applicants on the basis of the tenant's exclusion endorsement. While the applicants argued that the wording of the Standard Mortgage Clause was clear and included protection in the immediate case, the insurer attempted to distinguish between policy exclusions and breaches of terms. According to the insurer, policy exclusions or conditions apply to insureds and mortgagees, while breaches of a term of a policy on the part of an insured or an insured's tenant may still allow a mortgagee to recover pursuant to the Standard Mortgage Clause.

While the Court found no case law considering the interaction between a Standard Mortgage Clause and a tenant's exclusion clause specifically, it examined several cases that considered the relationship between a Standard Mortgage Clause and other types of exclusion clauses. Specifically, the Court relied on Royal Bank of Canada v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 779 for the proposition that a Standard Mortgage Clause supersedes "any Exclusions in a policy which are in conflict with the Standard Mortgage Clause". According to the Court of Queen's Bench, the Supreme Court's findings suggest that in such cases, "the Standard Mortgage Clause permits recovery by a mortgagee in circumstances where the Exclusion may operate so as to otherwise preclude recovery by an insured."

Ultimately, the Court found that the Standard Mortgage Clause was clear in protecting the mortgagees against any act attributable to the mortgagor, owner or occupant of the property, while superseding any conflicting provisions as to the interests of the mortgagee. Citing the Supreme Court in Royal Bank, the Court found that the mortgagee's coverage was thus unaffected by exceptions to the mortgagor's coverage that conflicted with the Standard Mortgage Clause. As such, the applicants prevailed.

3. Policy Interpretation - Accident & Sickness Insurance
Co-operators Life Insurance Co. v. Gibbens
2009 SCC 59


The respondent insured, who was a beneficiary under a group insurance policy issued by the appellant, contracted herpes as a result of having unprotected sex. Following becoming infected, he suffered inflammation of the spinal cord (transverse myelitis) resulting in total paralysis from his mid-abdomen down, which was a rare complication of the disease. He subsequently claimed compensation under the group insurance policy, which provided coverage for losses "as a result of a Critical Disease or resulting directly and independently of all other causes from bodily Injuries occasioned solely through external, violent and accidental means." (emphasis added) The definition of "Critical Disease" did not include transverse myelitis and the insurance policy lacked a definition of "accident" or "accidental means". The central issue, therefore, was whether the respondent's loss could be considered a result of accidental means (nothing turning on the definitions of "external" and "violent", as those terms have long been subsumed by the definition of "accident").

Lower Courts

At trial, the Supreme Court of British Columbia relied on Martin v. American International Assurance Life Co., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 158, for the proposition that in determining whether the loss occurred by accidental means, a Court must consider whether the consequences were unexpected. Since the respondent's paralysis was an unexpected consequence of his actions, the BCSC found the paralysis to be caused by "accidental means" within the meaning of the insurance policy. On appeal, the British Columbia Court of Appeal rejected the notion that an "accident" could be determined by simply applying an "expectation test". Rather, an "ordinary person's understanding" of the words "accident" and "accidental" must be considered. Such an understanding requires an unexpected mishap or external factor. Applying this concept, the Court of Appeal found that the transverse myelitis did not arise naturally, but due to an external factor, being the introduction of the virus into the insured's body. As such, the loss was found to have occurred due to an "accident".

Supreme Court Decision

In considering the definition of "accident", the Supreme Court found that such words should be given their ordinary meaning. Applying this principle, it found that an accident "involves the idea of something fortuitous and unexpected, as opposed to something proceeding from natural causes" (quoting Welford's "The Law Relating to Accident Insurance"). The Supreme Court rejected the expectation test and, rather, found that the means by which a loss occurs forms a necessary part of determining whether the loss was caused by an accident. "[A] claimant who can establish that death was unexpected does not thereby, without more, establish a valid accident. Otherwise, every bad happening, natural or unnatural, whether caused by disease in the ordinary course of events or otherwise, would be classified as an accident."

Thus, the Supreme Court suggested that the entire chain of events be considered and not just the means or the end. The Supreme Court cited Sinclair v. Maritime Passengers' Assurance Co. (1961), 121 E.R. 521, to illustrate how a characterization of the facts giving rise to the loss may impact a court's findings. In Sinclair, Cockburn C.J. offered an example of a loss caused by exposure to the elements in the common course of navigating a ship (which would not be considered an accident), as opposed to a loss caused by exposure following a shipwreck (which could be held to be the result of an accident).

In the immediate case, in describing the scope of the respondent's coverage, the Supreme Court considered what an average person would understand by the terms of the policy. While such a person would understand that he or she was not buying comprehensive health insurance, "unlisted diseases or other bodily infirmities might still be covered if attributable to some antecedent event or events that could, together with the unexpected result, be characterized as accidental." Ultimately, however, the Supreme Court found that while the consequence of contracting herpes was unexpected, the insured's loss was caused by the natural transmission of disease. Specifically, "the transmission followed the normal method by which sexually transmitted diseases replicate" and could not be considered an "accident". To conclude otherwise would have added sexually transmitted diseases to the definition of "Critical Disease" and converted the insurance policy to one of comprehensive insurance for infectious diseases, contrary to the intent of the parties and their reasonable expectations. Thus, the insurer's appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

4. Extended Warranties
Brick Protection Corp. v. Alberta (Provincial Treasurer)
[2009] A.J. No. 1450 (Alta. Q.B.)

The plaintiff, Brick Protection, offered a number of protection plans to customers purchasing merchandise at Brick Warehouse stores. The plans generally provided that Brick Protection would replace or repair any defective items for a specific period of time and supplemented the manufacturers' warranty applicable to each particular item. Typically, such additional protection cost between 10%-15% of the retail price of the item. The defendants issued notices of assessment for "insurance corporation tax" against Brick Protection in 1994, covering the taxation years 1987 to 1993 and including tax, interest and penalties. As the plaintiff's position was that as it did not carry on in Alberta the business of insurance, it had not filed the relevant returns during the applicable taxation years. While the term "business of insurance" is not defined in the Insurance Act Alberta (the "Act"), its meaning may be derived from the definition of "insurance" under the Act. At issue, therefore, was whether the protection plans offered by Brick Protection fell within the definition of "insurance" under the Act.

In its submissions, Brick Protection distinguished between the two types of insurance (value insurance - which pays a fixed sum on the occurrence of a contingency - and indemnity for the value of a loss) and warranties. According to Brick Protection, its plans offered warranties, as they guarded against product defects or failure, rather than providing reimbursement based on an unrelated occurrence or accident. The defendants, meanwhile, argued that the plans were essentially insurance products, as the warranty contracts were sold for a price and Brick Protection agreed to provide a benefit to the purchaser and pay for repairs or replacement as obligated under the contract. The defendants further argued that the plaintiff's business model, which did not include the manufacture or sale of merchandise, was that of an insurance company.

While the Court found that the warranty plans offered by Brick Protection appeared to contain "the elements of an indemnity insurance contract", it ultimately found that the plans were not contracts of insurance. The Court came to this conclusion for several reasons. First, the Court distinguished between an "indemnity", where coverage is based on an assessment of a loss or damage, with the obligation under the plaintiff's plans, which the Court characterized as "simply a covenant to fix or replace a defective product." The Court cited numerous American cases recognizing such a distinction. Second, the Court cited R. v. Anderson and Teskey, [1940] 3 W.W.R. 505 (Alta. C.A.) for the proposition that "the definition of insurance must have some relation to the subjects of insurance dealt with by the Act." The definition of insurance and the classes of insurance regulated by the Act do not include warranties and consumer goods (except vehicle warranty insurance), leading the Court to find that there was no legislative intent to include warranties, other than those for vehicles, under the legislative scheme. Finally, the Court found that, although not determinative, it was "noteworthy" that the "only companies that can offer insurance are insurance companies." On this point, the Court cited the lack of action by the Alberta government to require licensing of Brick Protection as an insurance company.

As such, the Court found that Brick Protection's plans were "classic manufacturer's, or distributor's product, warranties". While very similar to insurance contracts, such plans have historically fallen outside the realm of insurance law. The Court drew a distinction between warranties, which cover "the risk that the covered product will fail due to some inherent fault or weakness in the course of normal use," and insurance, which covers "the risk of unforeseen events or perils to the product unrelated to an inherent weakness in the product itself." Thus, the plaintiff prevailed and was successful in appealing its notices of assessment.

The decision in Brick case can be distinguished with that of Association pour la protection des automobilistes inc. c. Toyota Canada inc., 2008 QCCA 761. While the Quebec Court of Appeal in Toyota also rejected the notion that the extended warranty offered could be classified as "insurance", in reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal focused somewhat on the characteristics of the party offering the warranty. According to the Court of Appeal, a contract is a warranty if it (i) warrants against manufacturing defects only; (ii) is simply an accessory to the contract of sale; and (iii) is offered by someone with an economic interest in the contract of sale such as the seller or manufacturer. Considering the facts of the case, the Court of Appeal found that the extended plan was a warranty, as it (i) was offered by a subsidiary of the manufacturer in the context of a purchase of a new vehicle from an authorized dealer; (ii) was titled "Mechanical Protection Continuation Agreement for New Toyota Vehicle" and described as an extension of the manufacturer's warranty; (iii) essentially provided for only the repair of the vehicle if there was a defect; (iv) was subsidiary to the basic warranty; (v) was offered by a party that was not an insurer but rather a merchant under the Consumer Protection Act (Quebec); and (vi) provided that it was not intended to be insurance and that, if it was held to be insurance, the respondent was replaced by an insurer.

Thus, the Court of Appeal in Toyota relied, to some degree, on the characteristics of the party offering the extended warranty. On the other hand, the Court in Brick focused exclusively on the nature of the warranty offered by the protection plan. The decision emanating from Alberta, therefore, appears to go further in providing flexibility to those offering extended warranties, as such warranties could presumably be offered by parties unrelated to the manufacturer of the merchandise to which the warranty applies.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.