Land.Cases

Reading: Landmark Legal Cases in Canada

Author: various - different for each case

  Forum

Pop Quiz

There are actually 4 syllabus readings, (including this one, Landmark Legal Insurance Cases in Canada), that contain legal precedents. What are the other 3 syllabus readings that contain legal precedents?

Study Tips

New Legal Case for 2022-Fall: Click the link to go an external web page with a concise summary of this case: Tomec v Economical

New Legal Case for 2021-Spring: Click the link to go an external web page with a very nicely written summary of this case: Saadati vs Moorhead

This reading covers roughly 15 important Canadian legal cases. It's provided as part of the CAS Study Kit and is a collection of individual legal documents. It's very long and very difficult to read because it uses legal jargon, but there's a trick! I'm going to go out on a limb and say that reading the source text, as it's provided in the Study Kit, is a waste of time. These legal cases are well known and you can get the information you need using google. You'll find websites for every case and the details are explained in layman's terms. That's what I did. Then I made BattleCard summaries, which is what you have to memorize. So just to be absolutely clear, here's what you should do:

• take 15 minutes to scan this wiki article to get the general idea
• google the first listed case in the table 1-Phrase Summaries – it's "Whiten vs Pilot Insurance"
• spend 15 minutes on one of the many websites that have information about that case
• go to the Legal Cases page, select "Whiten vs Pilot Insurance" (it's roughly the 7^th one from the top) , and start memorizing the relevant information

Then repeat for the other cases. It will take you significant time to memorize all of these cases reliably and to do all the old exam problems. Alice's suggestion is that you allocate 10-15 minutes every day to reviewing and memorizing the details. This topic is always covered on the exam and it's easy points if you take the time to learn it.

Other Legal Cases: There are 10-15 more legal cases on the syllabus that are not covered in "Landmark Legal Cases". These cases are spread across other syllabus readings which is very inconvenient. As noted above however, you can access all cases in one place on the Legal Cases page, which is also accessible from the Combat Training box on the BattleActs Main Page.

Estimate study time: 1 hour on your first pass, then 10-15 minutes daily until you have memorized all cases reliably. (Actually, you probably need to keep reviewing these cases all the way to the exam. You'd be surprised how quickly the details fade. And remember: questions on legal cases are usually easy points.)

BattleTable

Based on past exams, the main things you need to know (in rough order of importance) are:

• cases related to an insurer's duty-defend
• cases related to catastrophic injury
• facts/issues/rulings for all legal cases in Landmark Legal
• facts/issues/rulings for all legal cases in papers other than Landmark Legal

Click to see a listing of all legal cases across the whole syllabus.

Top Questions ← Questions you absolutely need to know!

reference	part (a)	part (b)	part (c)	part (d)
E (2019.Spring #5)	Sansalone v Wawanesa - duty-to-defend	Nichols v American Home Assurance - duty-to-defend	Alie v. Bertrand Frere: - duty-to-defend
E (2019.Spring #6)	Precision Plating v. Axa: - duty-to-defend	Kusnierz v Economical - catastrophic injury
E (2018.Fall #8)	Alie v. Bertrand Frere: - duty-to-defend	Precision Plating v. Axa: - duty-to-defend
E (2018.Spring #5)	Amos v ICBC - coverage issues	Hughes v Economical: - credit 1
E (2017.Fall #3)	PIPEDA - credit
E (2017.Fall #4)	Sansalone v Wawanesa - duty-to-defend
E (2017.Spring #4)	Somersall v Scottish & York - subrogation
E (2016.Fall #5)	Aviva v Pastore - catastrophic injury	Aviva v Pastore - class 4 impairment	Aviva v Pastore - appeal
E (2016.Spring #5)	Aviva v Pastore - catastrophic injury	Kusnierz v Economical - catastrophic injury
E (2016.Spring #6)	Morrow v Zhang - minor injury caps
E (2015.Fall #4)	PIPEDA - credit score	KP Pacific v Guardian - multi-peril policies	Nichols v American Home Assurance - duty-to-defend
E (2015.Spring #8)	Sansalone v Wawanesa - majority reasoning	Sansalone v Wawanesa - minority reasoning
E (2014.Fall #6)	punitive damages - purpose	Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co - proportionality	Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co - dimensions
E (2014.Spring #2)	Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co - proportionality	Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co - dimensions
E (2014.Spring #3)	Resurfice Corp v Hanke - 'but for' test	Resurfice Corp v Hanke - rulings	Resurfice Corp v Hanke - Supreme Court	Resurfice Corp v Hanke - material contribution
E (2013.Fall #2)	Duty-to-Defend - 2 cases
E (2013.Fall #4)	OUTDATED - BC v Imperial Tobacco
E (2012.Fall #8)	Amos v ICBC - purpose, causality tests	Amos v ICBC - issues	Amos v ICBC - ruling	Amos v ICBC - applicability to Ontario
E (2012.Fall #9)	Morrow v Zhang - minor injury caps	Morrow v Zhang - issues	Morrow v Zhang - rulings

¹ This case was from an article in the Canadian Underwriter. It was removed from the syllabus for the Fall.2018 exam.

In Plain English!

Intro

This reading contains valuable information but is poorly presented. We're actuaries, not lawyers! This reading is an information dump of legal briefs without any guidance on how to make sense of them. My personal approach was to invent my own way of conceptualizing the essential information.

Basic Conceptualization

I've organized each case into Facts, Issues, & Rulings. This is demonstrated below with the case Whiten v Pilot Ins Co.

Facts: family house burns down | insurer pays for temporary shelter then ceases payments | insurer claims they aren't liable due to arson (but has no evidence)

Issues: did Pilot Ins use the power imbalance to force insured into a smaller settlement?

Rulings 1,2,3: jury awards 1m punitive | ON appeals court reduces to 100K | Supreme Court restores 1m

Note that the '1,2,3' indicates that this case had 3 separate rulings: (the initial trial, 1st appeal, Supreme Court appeal). Some cases are settled just with the initial trial; others with an initial trial and appeal.

Case-Specific Information

Some cases have relevant information that doesn't fit into the Facts, Issues, Ruling structure. (defns, other details, etc...) For Whiten v Pilot, there are 2 additional items:

Details-general: awards of this type should consider PROPORTIONALITY along several DIMENSIONS

Details-dimensions: BVH-DPL

• Blameworthiness of insurer
• Vulnerability of victim
• Harm to victim
• Deterrence to insurer
• consider other Penalties insurer may have incurred
• punitive award should not been seen by the insurer as a "License" (no financial gain for insurer)

Meta-Information

Once you've memorized the BattleCards for these 13 cases, there are higher-level meta-questions you should be able to answer. These include:

Question: which cases went to the Supreme Court? [Hint: Z-SWANS]

Zamboni case: Resurfice Corp v Hanke (This is the ZAMBONI case - the one where that dumb-ass Hanke poured water in the zamboni's gas tank.)

Somersall v York

Whiten v Pilot Ins Co

Amos v ICBC

Nichols v American Home

Saadati v Moorhead

Question: given a particular issue, can you cite the relevant case(s)

Ex: Which cases relate to an insurer's duty to defend?

PRIMARY insurer: (Sansalone v Wawanesa | Nichols v American Home | Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance)

EXCESS insurer: (Alie v Bertrand Frere construction)

Ex: Which cases deal with catastrophic injuries as their main issue?

• Aviva v Pastore, Kusnierz v Economical
• Note that Belanger v Sudbury involves a catastrophic injury but that is not the main issue in the case (it's about standard of care)
• Also, Tomec v Economical involves a catastrophic injury but the main issue is the "discoverability principle".

1-Phrase Summaries

Each of the cases can be encapsulated with just 1 phrase. When you can recall each case based just on the given phrase, THEN you really know your s**t.    :-)

Here's a link to a forum discussion on memory tricks for these legal cases. Memory tricks are often personal but this post is an example of the level of effort required. You should start memorizing the details of these cases early and go over them almost daily until you know them. Once they are in your brain, you can review them less frequently but if you find yourself forgetting, then increase your review frequency.

Note that the case Somersall v Friedman is not listed in the table below. See footnote ¹ for the explanation. (shout-out to MB!!) Also, case names for cases that went to the Supreme Court of Canada are in purple font.

	Case Name	1-phrase Summary	Fun Fact :-)
1	Whiten v Pilot Ins Co	proportionality	Insured wins
2	Somersall v Scottish & York 1	subrogation	Insured wins
3	Sansalone v Wawanesa	duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (sexual abuse)	Insurer wins
4	Nichols v American Home Assurance	duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (fraud)	Insurer wins
5	Amos v ICBC	purpose test, causality test	Insured wins
6	(removed) KP Pacific v Guardian	multi-peril policies	Insured wins
7	Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction	duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (excess insurer)	Insured wins
8	(removed) BC v Imperial Tobacco	Extra-Territoriality, Judicial Independence, RULE of LAW	BC wins
9	Resurfice Corp v Hanke	'but for' test, 'material contribution' test	Manufacturer wins
10	Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004)	minor injury caps	AB wins
11	PIPEDA Report of Findings	privacy (credit scores)	privacy not violated
12	Aviva v Pastore	catastrophic impairment (class 4)	Insured wins
13	Kusnierz v Economical	catastrophic impairment (SABS threshold)	Insured wins
14	Belanger v Sudbury	standard of care	Insured wins
15	Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance	duty-to-defend (primary cause of loss)	Insurer wins
16	Saadati v Moorhead	non-pecuniary compensation for mental injuries	Insured wins
17	Tomec v Economical	catastrophic impairment (discoverability principle)	Insured wins

¹ Note that Somersall v Friedman (which is listed in the syllabus but not in my table above) and Somersall v Scottish and York are really the same case. Somersall was the inured party, Friedman was the under-insured driver, and Scottish and York was Somersall's insurer. But note that:

• Somersall v Friedman seems to refer to the first appeal by Scottish and York to the Ontario Supreme Court.
• Somersall v Scottish and York seems to refer to the second appeal by Scottish and York to the Canadian Supreme Court that dealt specifically with the interpretation of SEF 44.

Quizzes

I've broken these cases into 6 mini BattleQuizzes so that each is not so daunting. If you want, you can do them all at once in the Full BattleQuiz (see BattleCodes at bottom.)

mini BattleQuiz 1 Cases 1,2

mini BattleQuiz 2 Cases 3,4,7,15 (duty to defend)

mini BattleQuiz 3 Cases 5,6,14,16

mini BattleQuiz 4 Cases 9,10,11

mini BattleQuiz 5 Cases 12,13,17

mini BattleQuiz 6 miscellaneous questions

BattleCodes

Memorize:

• Facts, Issues, Rulings for all cases.

Conceptual:

• Exam questions often describe a legal situation then ask your opinion on the likely outcome as well as your reasoning, citing relevant precedents.
• Make sure you clearly indicate your answer to each item! This is a common way candidates lose points.

Calculational:

• None.

Expect 2-3 pts from this paper on the exam

Full BattleQuiz You must be logged in or this will not work.

  Forum

POP QUIZ ANSWERS

The 4 syllabus readings that contain legal precedents are:

• Baer.Intro (Baer & Rendall: Cases on the Canadian Law of Insurance) 3 cases
• Dav.NonPec (Davidson: The Cap on Non Pecuniary General Damages) Trilogy ruling + 4 cases after the Trilogy ruling
• Land.Cases (Landmark Legal Insurance Cases in Canada) 14 cases
• McD.Intro (McDonald: Life Insurance Laws of Canada) 4 cases, including the famous Insurance Reference Case