Land.Cases

MODIFIED for 2025-Fall: A new legal case was added for 2025-Fall which we are researching but you can study everything that's here. Check back later for information on the new case.

Reading: Landmark Legal Cases in Canada

Authour: various - different for each case

Forum

BA Quick-Summary: Legal Cases This section summarizes key Canadian legal cases included in the CAS Study Kit, many of which are also publicly available online (easy summaries highlighting key information from the different legal cases) . Each case presents distinct facts and information, and the exam may test on specific details or interpretations from any of them. Be sure to read each case carefully and commit the key facts to memory. Tips, highlights, and important takeaways for each case are provided below.

Pop Quiz

There are actually 4 syllabus readings, (including this one, Landmark Legal Insurance Cases in Canada), that contain legal precedents. What are the other 3 syllabus readings that contain legal precedents?

Study Tips

New for 2025-Fall: Loblaws vs RSA

This reading covers roughly 15 important Canadian legal cases. It's provided as part of the CAS Study Kit and is a collection of individual legal documents. It's very long and very difficult to read because it uses legal jargon, but there's a trick! I'm going to go out on a limb and say that reading the source text, as it's provided in the Study Kit, is a waste of time. These legal cases are well known and you can get the information you need using google. You'll find websites for every case and the details are explained in layman's terms. That's what I did. Then I made BattleCard summaries, which is what you have to memorize. So just to be absolutely clear, here's what you should do:

• take 15 minutes to scan this wiki article to get the general idea
• google the first listed case in the table 1-Phrase Summaries – it's "Whiten vs Pilot Insurance"
• spend 15 minutes on one of the many websites that have information about that case
• go to the Legal Cases page, select "Whiten vs Pilot Insurance" (it's roughly the 7^th one from the top) , and start memorizing the relevant information

Then repeat for the other cases. It will take you significant time to memorize all of these cases reliably and to do all the old exam problems. Alice's suggestion is that you allocate 10-15 minutes every day to reviewing and memorizing the details. This topic is always covered on the exam and it's easy points if you take the time to learn it.

• Exam questions often describe a legal situation then ask your opinion on the likely outcome as well as your reasoning, citing relevant precedents.

Other Legal Cases: There are 10-15 more legal cases on the syllabus that are not covered in "Landmark Legal Cases". These cases are spread across other syllabus readings which is very inconvenient. As noted above however, you can access all cases in one place on the Legal Cases page.

Estimate study time: 1 hour on your first pass, then 10-15 minutes daily until you have memorized all cases reliably. (Actually, you probably need to keep reviewing these cases all the way to the exam. You'd be surprised how quickly the details fade. And remember: questions on legal cases are usually easy points.)

BattleTable

Based on past exams, the main things you need to know (in rough order of importance) are:

• cases related to an insurer's duty-defend
• cases related to catastrophic injury
• facts/issues/rulings for all legal cases in Landmark Legal
• facts/issues/rulings for all legal cases in papers other than Landmark Legal

Click to see a listing of all legal cases across the whole syllabus.

Top Questions ← Questions you absolutely need to know!

reference	part (a)	part (b)	part (c)	part (d)
E (2019.Spring #5)	Sansalone v Wawanesa - duty-to-defend	Nichols v American Home Assurance - duty-to-defend	Alie v. Bertrand Frere: - duty-to-defend
E (2019.Spring #6)	Precision Plating v. Axa: - duty-to-defend	Kusnierz v Economical - catastrophic injury
E (2018.Fall #8)	Alie v. Bertrand Frere: - duty-to-defend	Precision Plating v. Axa: - duty-to-defend
E (2018.Spring #5)	Amos v ICBC - coverage issues	Hughes v Economical: - credit 1
E (2017.Fall #3)	PIPEDA - credit
E (2017.Fall #4)	Sansalone v Wawanesa - duty-to-defend
E (2017.Spring #4)	Somersall v Scottish & York - subrogation
E (2016.Fall #5)	Aviva v Pastore - catastrophic injury	Aviva v Pastore - class 4 impairment	Aviva v Pastore - appeal
E (2016.Spring #5)	Aviva v Pastore - catastrophic injury	Kusnierz v Economical - catastrophic injury
E (2016.Spring #6)	Morrow v Zhang - minor injury caps
E (2015.Fall #4)	PIPEDA - credit score	KP Pacific v Guardian - multi-peril policies	Nichols v American Home Assurance - duty-to-defend
E (2015.Spring #8)	Sansalone v Wawanesa - majority reasoning	Sansalone v Wawanesa - minority reasoning
E (2014.Fall #6)	punitive damages - purpose	Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co - proportionality	Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co - dimensions
E (2014.Spring #2)	Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co - proportionality	Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co - dimensions
E (2014.Spring #3)	Resurfice Corp v Hanke - 'but for' test	Resurfice Corp v Hanke - rulings	Resurfice Corp v Hanke - Supreme Court	Resurfice Corp v Hanke - material contribution
E (2013.Fall #2)	Duty-to-Defend - 2 cases
E (2013.Fall #4)	OUTDATED - BC v Imperial Tobacco
E (2012.Fall #8)	Amos v ICBC - purpose, causality tests	Amos v ICBC - issues	Amos v ICBC - ruling	Amos v ICBC - applicability to Ontario
E (2012.Fall #9)	Morrow v Zhang - minor injury caps	Morrow v Zhang - issues	Morrow v Zhang - rulings

¹ This case was from an article in the Canadian Underwriter. It was removed from the syllabus for the Fall.2018 exam.

In Plain English!

Intro

This reading contains valuable information but is poorly presented. We're actuaries, not lawyers! This reading is an information dump of legal briefs without any guidance on how to make sense of them. My personal approach was to invent my own way of conceptualizing the essential information.

Basic Conceptualization

I've organized each case into Facts, Issues, & Rulings. This is demonstrated below with the case Whiten v Pilot Ins Co.

Facts: family house burns down | insurer pays for temporary shelter then ceases payments | insurer claims they aren't liable due to arson (but has no evidence)

Issues: did Pilot Ins use the power imbalance to force insured into a smaller settlement?

Rulings 1,2,3: jury awards 1m punitive | ON appeals court reduces to 100K | Supreme Court restores 1m

Note that the '1,2,3' indicates that this case had 3 separate rulings: (the initial trial, 1st appeal, Supreme Court appeal). Some cases are settled just with the initial trial; others with an initial trial and appeal.

Case-Specific Information

Some cases have relevant information that doesn't fit into the Facts, Issues, Ruling structure. (defns, other details, etc...) For Whiten v Pilot, there are 2 additional items:

Details-general: awards of this type should consider PROPORTIONALITY along several DIMENSIONS

Details-dimensions: BVH-DPL

• Blameworthiness of insurer
• Vulnerability of victim
• Harm to victim
• Deterrence to insurer
• consider other Penalties insurer may have incurred
• punitive award should not been seen by the insurer as a "License" (no financial gain for insurer)

Meta-Information

Once you've memorized the BattleCards for these 13 cases, there are higher-level meta-questions you should be able to answer. These include:

Question: which cases went to the Supreme Court? [Hint: Z-SWANS → Alternate HINT: See this discussion]

Zamboni case: Resurfice Corp v Hanke (This is the ZAMBONI case - the one where that dumb-ass Hanke poured water in the zamboni's gas tank.)

Somersall v York

Whiten v Pilot Ins Co

Amos v ICBC

Nichols v American Home

Saadati v Moorhead

Question: given a particular issue, can you cite the relevant case(s)

Ex: Which cases relate to an insurer's duty to defend?

PRIMARY insurer: (Sansalone v Wawanesa | Nichols v American Home | Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance)

EXCESS insurer: (Alie v Bertrand Frere construction)

Ex: Which cases deal with catastrophic injuries as their main issue?

• Aviva v Pastore, Kusnierz v Economical
• Note that Belanger v Sudbury involves a catastrophic injury but that is not the main issue in the case (it's about standard of care)
• Also, Tomec v Economical involves a catastrophic injury but the main issue is the "discoverability principle".

1-Phrase Summaries

Each of the cases can be encapsulated with just 1 phrase. When you can recall each case based just on the given phrase, THEN you really know your s**t.    :-)

Here's a link to a forum discussion on memory tricks for these legal cases. Memory tricks are often personal but this post is an example of the level of effort required. You should start memorizing the details of these cases early and go over them almost daily until you know them. Once they are in your brain, you can review them less frequently but if you find yourself forgetting, then increase your review frequency.

Note that the case Somersall v Friedman is not listed in the table below. See footnote ¹ for the explanation. Also, case names for cases that went to the Supreme Court of Canada are in purple font.

	Case Name	1-phrase Summary	Fun Fact :-)
1	Whiten v Pilot Ins Co	proportionality	Insured wins
2	Somersall v Scottish & York 1	subrogation	Insured wins
3	Sansalone v Wawanesa	duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (sexual abuse)	Insurer wins
4	Nichols v American Home Assurance	duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (fraud)	Insurer wins
5	Amos v ICBC	purpose test, causality test	Insured wins
6	(removed) KP Pacific v Guardian	multi-peril policies	Insured wins
7	Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction	duty-to-defend versus duty-to-indemnify (excess insurer)	Insured wins
8	(removed) BC v Imperial Tobacco	Extra-Territoriality, Judicial Independence, RULE of LAW	BC wins
9	Resurfice Corp v Hanke	'but for' test, 'material contribution' test	Manufacturer wins
10	Morrow v Zhang (AB 2004)	minor injury caps	AB wins
11	PIPEDA Report of Findings	privacy (credit scores)	privacy not violated
12	Aviva v Pastore	catastrophic impairment (class 4)	Insured wins
13	Kusnierz v Economical	catastrophic impairment (SABS threshold)	Insured wins
14	Belanger v Sudbury	standard of care	Insured wins
15	Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance	duty-to-defend (primary cause of loss)	Insurer wins
16	Saadati v Moorhead	non-pecuniary compensation for mental injuries	Insured wins
17	Tomec v Economical	catastrophic impairment (discoverability principle)	Insured wins

¹ Note that Somersall v Friedman (which is listed in the syllabus but not in my table above) and Somersall v Scottish and York are really the same case. Somersall was the inured party, Friedman was the under-insured driver, and Scottish and York was Somersall's insurer. But note that:

• Somersall v Friedman seems to refer to the first appeal by the insured to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
• Somersall v Scottish and York seems to refer to the second appeal by Scottish and York to the Canadian Supreme Court that dealt specifically with the interpretation of SEF 44.

Case Summaries

Cases 1,2

	Case Name	Facts	Issues	Rulings	Additional Details
1	Whiten v Pilot Ins Co	Family house burns down Insurer pays for temporary shelter then ceases payments Insurer claims they aren't liable due to arson (but has no evidence)	Did Pilot Insurance use the power imbalance to force insured into a smaller settlement?	Ruling 1: Jury awards 1m punity damage Ruling 2: ON appeals court reduces to 100k Ruling 3: Supreme Court restores 1m	Punitive Damages: Awards of this type should consider proportionality along several dimensions. These dimensions being: Blameworthiness of Insurer Vulnerability of victim Harm to victim Deterrence to insurer Consider other penalties insurer may have occurred Punitive award should not be seen by the insurer asa "license" (no financial gain for insurer)
2	Somersall v Scottish & York	Victim is severely injured by underinsured driver Injured party & tortfeasor sign limits agreement Injured party also claims against own insurer for excess beyond limits agreement Insurer denies claim	Regarding insurer: Does limits agreement imply plaintiff not legally entitled to further recovery from tortfeasor? (Insurer then effectively loses subrogation rights)	Ruling 1: Motions judge rules for insurer Ruling 2: ON appeals court reversed original ruling (plaintiff recovers under SEF 44) Ruling 3: Supreme Court dismissed insurer's appeal (plaintiff recovers under SEF 44)	Supreme Court reasoning: At time of accident, SEF 44 was in effect, therefore subsequent limits agreement did not preclude coverage under SEF 44 Defn: Limits Agreement Agreement between injured party & tortfeasor where: Tortfeasor admits liability Injured party won't sue for more than tortfeasor's limits Defn: SEF 44 Endorsement providing coverage to insured when tortfeasor is underinsured

Duty to Defend

	Case Name	Facts	Issues	Rulings	Additional Details
3	Sansalone v Wawanesa	BC Transit bus drivers sexually abused a teenager Wawanesa DENIED defense & coverage: policy terms exclude bodily injury caused intentionally	How does (duty to defend) relate to (duty to indemnify) Does insurer have a duty to defend where indemnification is beyond scope of policy?	Ruling 1: There IS duty to defend because bus drivers may have (mistakenly, negligently) believed consent had been given (insurer appeals) Ruling 2: Appeals court rules there is no duty to defend (2-1 split decision)	Appeal Majority Reasoning: IF act is intentional AND injury is (natural, probable) THEN there is intention to cause injury (therefore excluded by policy) Appeal Minority Reasoning: Act WAS intentional BUT injury was not. Defendant had invalid belief of consent There IS a duty to defend (but not indemnify
4	Nichols v American Home Assurance	A solicitor was accused of fraud but found innocent Sought defence costs from professional liability insurer Insurer denied claim	How does (duty to defend) relate to (duty to indemnify) Does insurer have a duty to defend where indemnification is beyond scope of policy	Ruling 1: Insurer must defend Ruling 2: ON appeals court dismissed appeal: (Duty to indemnify) versus (duty to defend) different Must pay defense since defendant was found innocent Ruling 3: Supreme Court allowed appeal: (Duty to defend) is triggered (by duty to indemnify) since fraud beyond scope of coverage --> no duty to indemnify --> no duty to defend
7	Alie v Bertrand Frere Construction	Defective concrete requires replacement of basements of 140 houses in Ottawa (built between 1986 and 1988)	Indemnity Cost Allocation: Different years were covered by different insurers Which policies were triggered? Defence Cost Allocation: How are defence costs ALLOCATED between primary & excess insurers?	Ruling 1a: Indemnity Trigger: injury-in-fact consider each 1-yr period from construction to realization of defect in 1992 Assume that damages are evenly spread over all years Ruling 1b: Defence Trigger excess/umbrella policies have duty to defend provided.. ..they follow the form of the underlying policy AND do not specifically exclude duty to defend
15	Precision Plating v Axa Pacific Insurance	Insured had a fire on premises causing chemicals to overflow and contaminate neighboring property	Does insurer have a duty to defend Pollution/contamination is EXCLUDED by policy But insured argued that cause of loss was fire & therefore covered	Ruling 1: Chambers judge held for insured (insurer must defend) Policy terms were ambiguous Should not exclude contamination caused by fire Ruling 2: insurer's appeal allowed (no duty to defend) third party claims were for CONTAMINATION not for fire (thus excluded from coverage)	Compare to other duty to defend cases: compare to: (no duty to defend because no duty to indemnify) Sansalone v Wawanesa (sexual abuse) Nichols v American Home (fraud) Precision Plating was different however: Pollution/contimation was clearly excluded Insured argued cause of loss was fire not pollution (unsuccessful on appeal)

Involving Catastrophic Injury

	Case Name	Facts	Issues	Rulings	Additional Details
12	Aviva v Pastore	Victim sustained severe complications from ankle inury in 2002 auto accident sought catastrophic impairment designation Aviva rejected cat impairment designation	For class 4 designation, is it enough to show marked impairment in just 1 functional category? for Pastore, this was Daily living	Pre-ruling (DAC, Arbitration): DAC: concluded there was marked impairment in daily living an assessment of class 4 cat impairment was appropriate Arbitration: DAC's conclusion affirmed by arbitration delegate (class 4 impairment upheld) Ruling 1 (Divisional Court): judicial review requested by Aviva reversed prior decision judge stated that delegate exceeded jurisdiction --> NO cat impairment Ruling 2 (Appellate Court): Divisional Court erred in 'standard of review' standard should be 'reasonableness' (which delegate applied) --> class 4 cat impairment reinstated	Note: DAC stands for Designated Assessment Centres DACs were used by Ontario auto insurers and claimants DACs provided neutral third-party opinions about a claimant's injuries and benefits DACs were in effect from 1994-2006 Definition of Class 4 Impairment: marked impairment significantly impeding useful functioning in at least 1 of: (DSCW) Daily living / Social interaction / Concentration / Work activities Final Words: there is currently a big gap in compensation between (non-cat & cat) impairment there should be a provision for something between minor injury and cat impairment
13	Kusnierz v Economical	plaintiff had leg amputated following auto accident (as passenger) sought classification as catastrophically impaired	can physical impairment of 50% be combined with mental impairment % to reach 55% threshold for SABS cat impairment	Ruling 1: TRIAL: NO cat impairment SABS does not explicity state that physical & mental impairment can be summed SABS = Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule Ruling 2: APPEAL: allowed cat impairment combining physical & mental %'s seemed a more reasonable & modern interpretation more would qualify for cat impairment but still rare --> NO material impact on AA (Availability / Affordability) of insurance
17	Tomec v Economical	Initial Injury the insured (Tomec) was hit by a vehicle as a pedestrian on Sept 12, 2008 her injuries were serious but not catastrophic she was therefore granted 104 weeks of ACB (Attendant Care Benefits) and HK (House Keeping) Economical stopped benefits on Sept 12, 2010 Deteriorating Condition Economical reclassified her as CAT (Catastrophically impaired) in May 2015 CAT impairment removes the time limit for ACB and HK but Economical denied benefits because the 2-year statutory time limit for making a claim had expired Economical argued the clock started on Sept 12, 2010 (orignal date of stoppage of benefits)	does the discoverability principle apply so that the statutory time limit can be extended? (Is Tomec still entitled to extended benefits based on subsequent CAT classification?)	Ruling 1: the LAT (License Appeal Tribunal) and the Ontario Divisional Court concluded discoverability does not apply Tomec did not apply for extended benefits by Sept 12, 2012 therefore Tomec cannot apply for (or receive) extended benefits Ruling 2: Ruling Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that discoverability did apply to the limitation period the orders of LAT and Divisional Court were set aside Reasoning It would be absurd to expect Tomec to apply for extended benefits by Sept 12, 2012 because.. ..Economical didn't even classify her as eligible for extended benefits until May 2015	Discoverability Principle Discoverability Principle a statutory limitation period can be extended in certain cases specifically, where a plaintiff did not have knowledge of and cannot have reasonably discovered an event For Tomec she didn't "discover" her CAT impairment until May 2015 (Economical's official acknowledgment date) wasn't possible for her to apply for extended benefits within 2 years of original stoppage on Sept 12, 2010 Concluding Comments The Court of Appeals further supported their decision because: if she had NOT claimed the original benefits then the statutory time limit would have started May 2015 and.. ..she would NOT have been denied extended benefits but the catastrophic impairment would be the same in each case so the outcome should be the same
14	Belanger v Sudbury	20 year-old woman catastrophically injured in head-on collision due to icy road in Sudbury Ontario	was the city LIABLE for failing to maintain roadway in good repair during a winter storm damages of 12 million had already been agreed upon	Ruling 1: City was liable for plaintiff's injuries Salting & plowing occurred but were not sufficient given the storm conditions Ruling 2: UPHELD: court of appeal rejected defendant's "statutory defense" and upheld trial judges decision city is expected to ADAPT to conditions, NOT just blindly follow procedure	Defense - Describe the city's defense strategy the city attempted a "statutory defense": claimed no liability because: could not reasonably be expected to know about the reformed ice OR took reasonable steps to maintain roadway Comment - standard of care this case was essentially about "standard of care" appeal judge implied that standard of care was breached a qualified city worker should reasonably have forseen the icy conditions and taken steps to mitigate them

Cases 9, 10, 11

	Case Name	Facts	Issues	Rulings	Additional Details
9	Resurface Corp v Hanke	Hanke badly burned in freak Zamboni accident: sued manufacturer Hanke claimed: (gas, water) tanks looked similar & easily confused (dumb-ass)	ISSUE: what was the cause of injury? STANDARD CAUSATION TEST: 'but for' rule ALTERNATE CAUSATION TEST: "material contribution" (use only when the "but for" rule can't establish causation)	Ruling 1 (Initial Trial): TRIAL: defendant wins REASONING: apply the "but for" test would explosion still have occurred BUT FOR making gas/water tanks similar? YES, so defendant NOT liable Ruling 2 (Appeal): APPEAL: plaintiff (Hanke) wins REASONING: apply "material contribution test" appeals judge stated trial judge failed in FC analysis (Foreseeability & Causation) appeals judge then applied "material contribution test" Ruling 3 (Supreme Court): Supreme Court: defendant wins REASONING: apply "but for" test NOT "material contribution" test since accident WAS NOT reasonably foreseeable	What is the "but for" causation test "but for" CAUSATION TEST: Would result have occurred BUT FOR act/omission of defendant? if YES: defendant NOT liable if NO: defendant liable What is the "material contribution" causation test: requires that the negligent action MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTED to the risk of harm less rigorous than the 'but for' test 2 requirements before "material contribution" test can be applied: REQ 1: the "but for" test CAN'T establish causation REQ 2: accident MUST be reasonably foreseeable
10	Morrow v Zhang	Alberta introduced legislation to address (rising costs, increase in un/under-insured motorists) trial challenged constitutionality of $4K cap on (minor, soft) injuries	ISSUE 1: cap stigmatizes minor injuries because it treats such victims as malingerers ISSUE 2: cap is discriminatory because it treats minor injuries differently regarding non-pecuniary damages	Ruling 1: Cap is discriminatory & struck down Ruling 2: appeal reveres original ruling cap is designed to lower prems for EVERYONE, not discrminate against minor injuries (cannot be appealed further)
11	PIPEDA Report of Findings	PIPEDA is Personal Information Protection & Electronic Documents Act an ON couple complained of increase in property insurance rates because InsR used their credit score		Ruling: PRIVACY COMMISSIONER: use of credit score is acceptable	Ruling - note: commissioner notes that the standard insurance form is deficient & misleading consent must be meaningful (website said credit score MAY be used, but it was ALWAYS used) insurer should be explicit regarding its intent

Cases 5, 16

	Case Name	Facts	Issues	Rulings	Additional Details
5	Amos v ICBC	the insured, Amos, was shot by gang in California (while driving rental car) claims no-fault Accident Benefits against his BC auto policy	PURPOSE TEST: was the car being used in a normal way? CAUSALITY TEST: was there a link (possibly indirect) b/w use of car and shooting?	Ruling 1: BC Supreme Court dismissed driver's claim Ruling 2: Appeals court upheld the judgment of the BC Supreme Court Ruling 3: Supreme Court of Canada held that appeal SHOULD be allowed (driver is compensated) answer is YES to both purpose & causality tests plaintiff received no-fault benefit (Accident Benefits) because damage was "ARISING OUT OF" use of car	Applicability in Ontario: not strictly appicable in Ontario in Ontario, the policy wording is damage "CAUSED BY" use of car (versus "ARISING OUT OF" use of car)
16	Saadati v Moorhead	Mr. Saadati sustained injuries in an auto accident when his vehicle was hit by Mr. Moorhead's vehicle accident occurred on July 5, 2005 (Mr. Saadati is the plaintiff, Mr. Moorhead is the defendant)	is Mr. Saadati eligible for non-pecuniary damages for physical and/or mental injury (see also: Trilogy case involving cap on non-pecuniary damages)	Ruling 1: Physical injury claim rejected by trial judge Mental injury claim evidence from plaintiff's expert psychologist not enough to establish psychological injury but testimony of Mr. Saadati's family and friends was sufficient proof of psychological injury judge awards $100,000 in non-pecuniary damages Ruling 2: trial judge's decision overturned by BC Court of Appeal Mr. Saadati had not demonstrated a medically recognized psychiatric or psychological injury Ruling 3: Supreme Court of Canada: unanimously reversed the BC Court of Appeal (June 2017) Reason: recovery for mental illness depends on 5 criteria: duty of care (defendant had a duty to drive safely) breach of duty of care legal causal relationship factual causal relationship establishment that the mental injury is serious & prolonged, and rises above ordinary anxieties & fears --> all criteria were met (plaintiff does not have to prove a specific recognized mental illness)	Concluding Comments: the law of negligence must afford equal protections to victims mental and physical injuries this case will have a significant impact on future cases dealing with compensation for mental injuries

Quizzes

I've broken these cases into 6 mini BattleQuizzes so that each is not so daunting. If you want, you can do them all at once in the Full BattleQuiz (see BattleCodes at bottom.)

mini BattleQuiz 1 Cases 1,2

mini BattleQuiz 2 Cases 3,4,7,15,18 (duty to defend)

mini BattleQuiz 3 Cases 5,6,14,16

mini BattleQuiz 4 Cases 9,10,11

mini BattleQuiz 5 Cases 12,13,17

mini BattleQuiz 6 miscellaneous questions

Full BattleQuiz You must be logged in or this will not work.

  Forum

POP QUIZ ANSWERS

The 4 syllabus readings that contain legal precedents are:

• Baer.Intro (Baer & Rendall: Cases on the Canadian Law of Insurance) 3 cases
• Dav.NonPec (Davidson: The Cap on Non Pecuniary General Damages) Trilogy ruling + 4 cases after the Trilogy ruling
• Land.Cases (Landmark Legal Insurance Cases in Canada) ~15 cases
• McD.Intro (McDonald: Life Insurance Laws of Canada) 4 cases, including the famous Insurance Reference Case