Miller v. Hamilton Police Benefit Fund

Miller v. Hamilton Police Benefit Fund

Rule 25 operates only to suspend payment of gratuities until the fund reaches $8,000; it does not extinguish the fund's liability accrued on death, and Rule 12's requirement of report and sanction does not negate the substantive right. The Ontario Insurance Act does not affect the appellants' right under the rules.

Citation
(1898) 28 SCR 475
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Eliza Miller and Others; Defendant/respondent: Hamilton Police Benefit Fund; Defendant/respondent: A.D. Stewart, John Muir and G.F. Jelfs
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 1898
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Final Appeal Decision, Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Divisional Court restored.
Legal Topics
Benefit Fund Rules, Construction of Rules, Suspension of Payment, Incorporation of Societies, Benevolent Societies Act, Insurance Act
Source Language
English
Commercial Law Insurance Law Municipal Law Trusts and Estates Administrative Law Benefit Fund Rules Construction of Rules Suspension of Payment +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eliza Miller and Others

Plaintiff/appellant

Hamilton Police Benefit Fund

Defendant/respondent

A.D. Stewart, John Muir and G.F. Jelfs

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Final Appeal Decision, Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 25 extinguishes liability of the fund until the fund reaches $8,000 or merely suspends payment
  2. 2 Whether entitlement to a gratuity under the rules is absolute or discretionary requiring committee report and Police Commissioners' sanction under Rule 12
  3. 3 Whether statutory provisions (Ontario Insurance Act 53 Vict. c.39 and Benevolent Societies Act R.S.O. 1887 c.172) affect the claim or the constitution of the fund

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 25 operates only to suspend payment of gratuities until the fund reaches $8,000; it does not extinguish the fund's liability accrued on death, and Rule 12's requirement of report and sanction does not negate the substantive right. The Ontario Insurance Act does not affect the appellants' right under the rules.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Divisional Court restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Divisional Court restored entitling plaintiffs to gratuity payment calculated under the rules (payment suspended until fund reaches $8,000)