Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Insurance – Automobile insurance – Torts – Negligence – Legislation – Interpretation – Extrinsic aids – Respondent no-fault insurance beneficiary bringing tort action against applicants to recover damages for gap between amount of benefits and actual costs – Court of Appeal setting aside order striking action – Whether any types of extrinsic materials are inadmissible because of their characteristics or their source – Whether an extrinsic aid has to speak directly to purportedly ambiguous text in order to be admissible – Whether meanings of “economic loss” and “entitlement” articulated by Court of Appeal thwart statutory scheme – The Automobile Accident Insurance Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. A-35, s. 103(2).

The respondent was seriously injured in a single vehicle rollover accident that occurred on a road maintained by the applicant Rural Municipality of Britannia, which had also engaged the services of the applicant Ron Handel Farm Ltd. to carry out certain work on the road. Although the respondent receives benefits pursuant to the modified no-fault provisions of The Automobile Accident Insurance Act, he alleges that those benefits do not fully cover his actual costs for rehabilitation, living assistance and other cost-of-care items he reasonably requires. Consequently, he launched a tort action against the applicants to recover damages for: (a) the gap between the amount the government insurer determines and contributes towards his rehabilitation and living assistance costs and his actual costs for such items and other care items reasonably required for his injuries that would be recoverable at common law – but not recoverable from the insurer; and (b) the gap between the income replacement benefits determined and paid by the insurer and his actual yearly income loss. The chambers judge declared that the respondent was not entitled to maintain the tort action. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal of that decision.