SCIC v. Deck (2005), 268 Sask.R. 155 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.026
Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation (plaintiff) v. Erwin Deck (defendant)
(Q.B.G. 17/2003; 2005 SKQB 375)
Indexed As: Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corp. v. Deck
Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench
Judicial Centre of Prince Albert
Matheson, J.
September 9, 2005.
Summary:
The defendant was found guilty of defrauding the plaintiff regarding certain crop insurance claims made in 1995 and 1996 and was ordered to make restitution. See [2000] Sask.R. Uned. 16 (Q.B.), affd. [2000] Sask.R. Uned. 205 (C.A.). The plaintiff sought to recover all indemnities paid to the defendant in those years, including those not obtained by fraud.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench held that the plaintiff’s damages were limited to the sums that the defendant obtained fraudulently.
Contracts – Topic 2068
Terms – Implied terms – Exceptions – Conflict with express terms – [See
Contracts – Topic 2116
].
Contracts – Topic 2116
Terms – Express terms – “Entire agreement” or “four corners” clause – In 1997, the plaintiff terminated its statutory crop insurance contract with the defendant when he was found guilty of defrauding the plaintiff regarding certain claims made in 1995 and 1996 – The contract had included an “entire agreement” clause – In 1998, the statutory contract was amended to allow termination at any time under certain conditions including misrepresentation by the insured – The plaintiff sought to recover all indemnities paid to the defendant in 1995 and 1996, including those not obtained by fraud – The plaintiff argued that the 1998 amendment was an implied term of its contract with the defendant, allowing the plaintiff to retroactively terminate the contract – The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench held that the 1998 amendment was not an implied term of the contract between the parties – If the term were implied, the amendment would not have been necessary – To import into the contract a provision permitting the plaintiff to retroactively cancel was not permissible – The plaintiff’s damages were limited to the sums that the defendant obtained fraudulently.
Insurance – Topic 1868
The insurance contract – Interpretation of contract – Implied terms – [See
Contracts – Topic 2116
].
Insurance – Topic 9606
Crop insurance – Changes in contract – [See
Contracts – Topic 2116
].
Counsel:
J.P. Elson, for the plaintiff;
R.J. Mills, Q.C., for the defendant.
This matter was heard by Matheson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following judgment on September 9, 2005.
