BLUE CROSS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA INTENDED APPELLANT AND: STEPHEN STAGG INTENDED RESPONDENT, 2016 NLCA 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation : Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada v. Stagg , 2016 NLCA 8 Date : 20160 223 Docket : 15/89 BETWEEN: BLUE CROSS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA INTENDED APPELLANT AND: STEPHEN STAGG INTENDED RESPONDENT Coram: Hoegg J.A. Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (

G) Appeal Heard: February 23, 2016 Judgment Rendered: February 23, 2016 (Orally) Memorandum of Disposition Filed: February 29, 2016 Counsel for the Intended Appellant: Annette Conway Counsel for the Intended Respondent: Mark Rogers Corrected decision: The text of the original judgment was corrected on March 8, 2016. A description of the correction is appended. MEMORANDUM OF DISPOSITION Hoegg J.A.: [ 1 ] Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order of the Supreme Court respecting a

summary trial decision resulting from its application under Rule 17A of the Rules of the Supreme Court , 1986. The Applications Judge

determined that the case was appropriate for

summary trial, and then decided that there was no genuine issue for trial on the basis that the Respondent/Plaintiff, Stephen Stagg, had not complied with the notice provisions of the insurance policy under which he sought compensation. However, the Judge declined to dismiss Mr. Stagg’s suit, and ordered that Mr. Stagg could apply for relief against forfeiture under the provisions of the Judicature Act , R.S.N.L., 1990, c. J-4,

section 91. [ 2 ] Blue Cross’s proposed grounds of appeal relate to two main issues: 1) whether the Judge was required to dismiss Mr. Stagg’s suit once he determined that there was no genuine issue for trial, and 2) whether the Judge’s decision ordering that Mr. Stagg could apply for relief from forfeiture under the Judicature Act was made in the absence of an evidentiary foundation and without such relief having been either pleaded and argued, and if so, whether the Judge’s order was appropriate. [ 3 ] Mr.

Stagg agrees that Blue Cross’s appeal is interlocutory and that it requires leave, but argues that leave should not be granted on the basis that to do so is not in the interests of justice. [ 4 ] Rule 57.02(4) sets out the criteria for granting leave to appeal: Leave to appeal an interlocutory order may be granted where (

a) there is a conflicting decision by another judge or court upon a question involved in the proposed appeal and, in the opinion of the Court, it is desirable that leave to appeal be granted, (

b) the Court doubts the correctness of the order in question, (

c) the Court considers that the appeal involves matters of such importance that leave to appeal should be granted, (

d) the Court considers that the nature of the issue is such that any appeal on that issue following final judgment would be of no practical effect, or (

e) the Court is of the view that the interests of justice require that leave be granted. [ 5 ] I was of the view that leave to appeal be granted to Blue Cross. I was satisfied that there is conflicting case law on both the

summary trial process issue and the issue respecting whether the judge was entitled to order that Mr. Stagg could apply for relief from forfeiture under the Judicature Act . I was convinced that both of these issues are important to the proper administration of justice (section 57.04(c)), and that it is therefore in the interests of justice (section 57.04(e)) that they be determined at this juncture. I also noted that an appellate court decision in Blue Cross’s favor following a trial of Mr.

Stagg’s suit would be moot (section 57.04(4)(d)). [ 6 ] Granting leave at this time also enables the parties to focus on the merits of the appeal without being diverted by the leave issue. [ 7 ] Accordingly, I ordered that Blue Cross has leave to appeal the Application Judge’s decision in this matter. ____________________________________ L. R. Hoegg J.A. Correction Notice: Correction made on March 8, 2016: 1. On the front page, the “ Date : 2016023” in the top right hand corner was replaced with “ Date : 20160223”.