Zurich Insurance Company Appellant v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, 2015 SCC 19
Opinion
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: Zurich Insurance Co. v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada , 2015 SCC 19, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 134 Date: 20150417 Docket: 36002 Between: Zurich Insurance Company Appellant and Chubb Insurance Company of Canada Respondent Coram: Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Côté JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (para. 1) The Court Zurich Insurance Co. v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada, 2015 SCC 19, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 134 Zurich Insurance Company Appellant v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada Respondent Indexed as: Zurich Insurance Co. v.
Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada 2015 SCC 19 File No.: 36002. 2015: April 17. Present: Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Côté JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Insurance — Automobile insurance — Statutory accident benefits scheme — Claimant having declined optional motor vehicle liability policy from insurance company upon renting vehicle subsequently injured in single-vehicle accident — Insurance
company refusing to provide benefits available under statutory scheme — Nexus between insurer and claimant — Application judge correctly found that arbitrator erred in concluding that insurance company not an insurer for purposes of statutory scheme — Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, s. 268 — Disputes Between Insurers, O. Reg. 283/95 . APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Juriansz, Pepall and Pardu JJ.A.), 2014 ONCA 400 , 120 O.R. (3d) 161, 319 O.A.C. 287, 379 D.L.R. (4th) 427, 65 M.V.R. (6th) 159, 34 C.C.L.I. (5th) 216, [2014] I.L.R. I-5615, [2014] O.J.
No. 2330 (QL), 2014 CarswellOnt 6274 (WL Can.), setting aside the decision of Goldstein J., 2012 ONSC 6363 , 15 C.C.L.I. (5th) 287, [2013] I.L.R. I-5360, [2012] O.J. No. 5336 (QL), 2012 CarswellOnt 14170 (WL Can.). Appeal allowed. Eric K. Grossman , Michael Warfe and Kate M. MacLeod , for the appellant. Eugene Meehan , Q.C. , and George Kanellakos , for the respondent. The following is the judgment delivered orally by [ 1 ] The Court — We are of the view that the appeal should be allowed with costs for the reasons of Juriansz J.A. Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan, Toronto. Solicitors for the respondent: Supreme Advocacy, Ottawa; KBM Law, Toronto.
Loading document…