British Columbia Insurance Blog : Canada Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Michael Thomas of Harper Grey Law Firm : British Columbia, Vancouver

A decision under s. 79(1) of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act must be appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench.

Constantin v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., [2010] M.J. No. 254, August 20, 2010, Manitoba Court of Appeal, F.M. Steel and A.D. MacInnes JJ.A. and H.C. Beard J. (ad hoc)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Insured was entitled to no-fault benefits under the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act following an accident involving a golf cart.

Hruska v. Bridges Golf Club Ltd. (c.o.b. Bridges Golf Course), [2010] M.J. No. 257, August 18, 2010, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, B.L. Keyser J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Driver of an unregistered and uninsured vehicle was not entitled to indemnity for damages to vehicle even though the other driver was found to be 100% at fault.

Kotello v. West, [2010] M.J. No. 154, May 4, 2010, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, C. Suche J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Court granted an insurer’s appeal from a judgment finding that it was liable to its insured under the terms of a broad-form, all-risk policy of insurance, to cover the costs of mould remediation and prevention to an apartment complex owned by the insured.

Minox Equities Ltd. v. Sovereign General Insurance Co., June 16, 2010, Manitoba Court of Appeal, R.J. Scott C.J.M., M.A. Monnin and F.M. Steel JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The insured Plaintiff brought a motion that he not be required to pay attendance money in order to conduct an oral examination for discovery of a knowledgeable person produced by the Defendant. The Defendant insurance company argued unsuccessfully that it did not reside in Manitoba and its designated knowledgeable person was in Vancouver.

MacAngus v. Royal and Sunalliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2009] M.J. No. 382, October 30, 2009, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, M. Kaufman J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Application by the insured for coverage under an all-risks policy allowed. Mould was found to be a risk covered under the policy and was not excluded from coverage by any of the provisions. The evidence supported the inference that the loss occurred during the policy period and not prior, as argued by the insurer.

Minox Equitities Ltd. v. Sovereign General Insurance Co., [2009] M.J. No. 280, July 21, 2009, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, D.P. Bryk J.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The appeal by the Government of Manitoba ("Manitoba") from a trial decision finding that Lumsden was totally disabled under the terms of the Long Term Disability Income Plan for Manitoba employees was allowed in part where the Court found that the $45,000 award for mental distress was excessive and reduced this award to $25,000.

Lumsden v. Manitoba, [2009] M.J. No. 48, February 17, 2009, Manitoba Court of Appeal, R.J. Scott C.J.M., M.H. Freedman and A.D. MacInnes JJ.A.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Appellant insured's  criminal conviction for intentionally setting fire on his property establishes a successful prima facie case by insurer at trial and shifts the burden to the insured to show a genuine issue for trial.

Ecclesiastical Insurance Office plc v. Michaud [2008] M.B.J. No. 387 Manitoba Court of Appeal M.A. Monnin, R.J.F. Chartier and A.D. MacInnes JJ.A. November 13, 2008

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Court concluded that Manitoba Health did not owe the plaintiff contractual or fiduciary duty of care under the province's health legislation; however, it owed the plaintiff a private law duty of care in compliance with statutory obligations and established policies and guidelines.

Lewycky v. Government of Manitoba 2008 M.J. No. 390 Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench D.P. Bryk, J November 6, 2008

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Court of Appeal upheld the Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission's (the "Commission") decision holding that the Provincial Motor Vehicle Insurer was not entitled to terminate the Insured's income replacement benefits.  Since the Commission had previously determined that the insured was entitled to insurance benefits, the Commission could not reconsider the decision several years later.

Shier v. Manitoba Public Insurance Co. [2008] M.J. No. 305 Manitoba Court of Appeal M.A. Monnin, B.M. Hamilton and R.J.F. Chartier JJ.A. September 8, 2008

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link