|
Statutory Interpretation - Consumer Legislation. Morrissey v. Wawanesa Insurance Company
In Morrissey v. Wawanesa Insurance Company (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a LAT SABS appeal, here where a long-term catastrophically-injured auto insurance claimant sought additional 'attendent care benefits'.
Here the court notes the 'consumer protection' nature of auto insurance:[36] I will attend to the legislative text later. In this appeal the context and purpose of the legislation play important roles that I will summarize briefly. First, automobile insurance is well understood to be a form of consumer protection: Abarca v. Vargas, 2015 ONCA 4, 123 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 36, citing Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 30, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 129, at para. 11. . Davis v. Aviva General Insurance Co.
In Davis v. Aviva General Insurance Co. (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court allowed an insured's LAT SABS appeal, here where the insurer paid several years of claims but then successfully denied coverage on the basis that there was no 'accident'.
Here the court notes that the auto SABS legislation is consumer legislation, here for purposes of statutory interpretation:[71] The view that the SABS should be considered as consumer legislation and therefore applied for the benefit of the consumer is as prevalent now as it was when Smith v. Co-operators was decided in 2002. It has been held consistently that the SABS must be interpreted generously as legislation that is remedial in nature. ... . Wu v. Suevilia Development Corporation
In Wu v. Suevilia Development Corporation (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered an appeal from two dismissed summary judgment claims, one for a breached APS (and forfeiture of the deposit) by the vendor, and a counter-claim for return of the deposit by the purchaser. The case was heavily-influenced by the 'pre-construction sales' provisions of the New Home Warranties Plan Act.
Here, the court considers the statutory interpretation status of the ONHWPA, being consumer legislation:[46] I agree with Mr. Wu that the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and its regulations are remedial, consumer protection legislation requiring a broad and liberal interpretation in light of their object and purpose: Ontario New Home Warranty Program v. Lukenda (1991), 1991 CanLII 7167 (ON CA), 2 O.R. (3d) 675 (C.A.), at para. 7. Such objects and purposes have been recognized to include protecting purchasers from vendors who do not proceed expeditiously with completion of a house, or who seek to use the fact of noncompletion to extricate themselves from an agreement in a rising market; and also, to better clarify and prescribe the conditions under which agreements of purchase and sale can be terminated: Wong v. Greyrock (Saddlebrook) Building Corp. (1993), 34 R.P.R. (2d) 215 (Ont. Gen. Div.), at para. 18; Reddy, at para. 23.
[47] Nonetheless, as noted in Reddy [SS: Reddy v. 1945086 Ontario Inc., 2019 ONSC 2554], the Special Committee that conducted the review that led to the reforms that brought about O. Reg. 165/08 acknowledged that the imposition of regulatory warranties should not unduly favour purchasers in a manner that is onerous for builders or that fails to recognize the inevitability of certain delays in new home construction: Final Report of the Special Committee on Delayed Closing, released February 2007, at p. 19. . Co-Operators Insurance Company v. Bennett
In Co-Operators Insurance Company v. Bennett (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court cites authority for auto insurance law being a form of consumer legislation:[29] Moreover, the LAT’s interpretation is consistent with the consumer protection objective of insurance legislation: Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. 2002 SCC 30 at para. 11.
|
