Northpoint Legal Articles

In Corner Brook (City) v. Bailey, 2021 SCC 29, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that releases should be interpreted like any other contract—based on their wording and the circumstances at the time. Mrs. Bailey’s third-party claim against the City was barred because the release she signed clearly covered all claims related to the 2009 accident. The Court rejected the older Blackmore Rule, emphasizing that general contractual principles now govern how releases are interpreted.

In R. v. Rajani, 2021 BCCA 292, the BC Court of Appeal ruled that “holding” an electronic device while driving includes supporting it with any part of the body—not just the hands. Mr. Rajani had a phone resting on or under his leg, which the court found qualified as “use” under the Motor Vehicle Act. This decision confirms a broad interpretation of “use,” meaning drivers may be ticketed even if the device isn’t held in their hands but is still physically supported.

Management fee awards compensate plaintiffs who need help managing large damages. BC courts now lean toward modest awards, even for significant settlements, focusing on the plaintiff’s financial ability, support system, and investment conditions. Awards depend on clear evidence of need and cost, guided by key cases like Mandzuk and Cikojevic.

Concurrent causation in insurance law—where multiple events cause a loss—remains a complex issue, particularly when policies exclude one cause but not another. Courts distinguish between independent and serial causes, with coverage hinging on policy language and whether the excluded cause is the dominant factor.

British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) aims to improve access to justice through a streamlined, online process, but its exclusion of lawyers in most hearings may unintentionally harm fairness—especially for insured parties who risk losing their right to a funded legal defence.

In Acciona v. Allianz, the BC courts clarified that under a typical builders risk (Course of Construction) policy, economic losses—like increased subcontractor costs due to delays—are not covered unless explicitly stated, even if they stem directly from physical property damage.

When multiple causes contribute to a loss—some covered and others excluded—Canadian courts distinguish between independent and serial concurrent causes. Coverage depends on clear policy wording and whether the excluded peril is the dominant cause of the loss.

Canadian courts maintain a strict cap on non-pecuniary damages (approx. $360,000 today), while awards for aggravated and punitive damages—especially in insurance bad faith cases—remain uncapped and are slowly trending upward, with recent challenges pushing their upper limits.