Maracle v. Travellers Indemnity Co. (1991), 125 N.R. 294 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Travellers Indemnity Company of Canada (appellant) v. Andrew Clifford Maracle, Jr. (respondent)
(No. 21725)
Indexed As: Maracle v. Travellers Indemnity Co. of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,
Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and
Iacobucci, JJ.
June 6, 1991.
Summary:
The plaintiff insured sued his insurer to recover the proceeds under a fire insurance policy respecting the loss of his commercial building.
The Ontario High Court of Justice, in a decision reported [1988] I.L.R. 1-2326; 31 C.C.L.I. 42, dismissed the action on the ground that it was not brought within the one year limitation period. The insured appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, Galligan, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported in [1990] I.L.R. 1-2539; 35 O.A.C. 297; 70 O.R.(2d) 360; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 570; 40 C.C.L.I. 161, allowed the appeal. The insurer appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment.
Contracts – Topic 9901
Promissory estoppel – General – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the party relying on the doctrine of promissory estoppel must establish that the other party has, by words or conduct, made a promise or assurance which was intended to affect their legal relationship and to be acted on – Further, the representee must establish that, in reliance on the misrepresentation, he acted on it or in some way changed his position – The promise must be unambiguous but can be inferred from the circumstances – See paragraph 12.
Contracts – Topic 9948
Promissory estoppel – Where applicable – Particular claims – To bar limitation period defence – The Supreme Court of Canada held that while an admission of liability is clearly one of the factors from which a court may infer as a finding of fact that a promise was made not to rely on the limitation period, it is not an alternate basis of promissory estoppel – See paragraph 14.
Contracts – Topic 9948
Promissory estoppel – Where applicable – Particular claims – To bar limitation period defence – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that an admission of liability is frequently made during settlement negotiations – An admission of liability which is to be taken as a promise not to rely on the limitation period must be such that the trier of fact can infer from it that it was so intended – There must be words or conduct from which it can be inferred that the admission was to apply whether the case was settled or not, and that the only issue between the parties, should litigation ensue, is the issue of quantum – If this finding is in favour of the plaintiff and the effect of the admission led the plaintiff to miss the limitation period, promissory estoppel has been established – See paragraph 15.
Contracts – Topic 9948
Promissory estoppel – Where applicable – Particular claims – To bar limitation period defence – Following a fire, an insurance adjuster investigated but a dispute arose respecting payment of certain of the proceeds – The insurer, admitting liability respecting certain proceeds, paid these moneys into court – The insurer offered to settle the disputed claim and pay that amount into court also – The insured did not respond, but issued a statement of claim for the proceeds, thirteen days late – The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no promise by the insurer, express or implied, not to rely on the limitation period – The court held that promissory estoppel had not been established – The insurer was not estopped from relying on the limitation period defence – See paragraphs 1 to 5, 16 to 18.
Limitation of Actions – Topic 9415
Bars – Disallowance of defence – Application of promissory estoppel – [See first and second
Contracts – Topic 9948
].
Cases Noticed:
Marchischuk v. Dominion Industrial Supplies Ltd. (1991), 125 N.R. 306, refd to. [para. 1].
Gillis v. Bourgard (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 107, refd to. [para. 8].
Collavino Inc. v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin (1984), 5 C.C.L.I. 94 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 8].
John Burrows Ltd. v. Subsurface Surveys Ltd., [1968] S.C.R. 607, refd to. [para. 12].
Engineered Homes Ltd. v. Mason, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 641; 47 N.R. 379, refd to. [para. 12].
Statutes Noticed:
Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 218, sect. 118 [para. 8]; sect. 125, item 14 [para. 6].
Counsel:
Joshua Liswood and Linda Dolan, for the appellant;
Ross V. Smiley, Q.C., and Will O’Hara, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Sawers, Liswood, Scott, Hickman, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Lilly, Goldman, Blott, Fejer, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard before La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada, on February 28, 1991. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered on June 6, 1991, in both official languages by Sopinka, J.
