General Security Insurance Co. of Canada v. Howard Sand & Gravel Co. Ltd.

General Security Insurance Co. of Canada v. Howard Sand & Gravel Co. Ltd.

The arrangement did not infringe the Public Commercial Vehicles Act; the insurer knew the true ownership and by its misrepresentation induced the respondent to make the settlement payment; the insurer was estopped from denying liability and the moneys paid are recoverable as paid to the insurer's use under Moule v. Garrett; appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1954] SCR 785
Parties
Appellant (defendant): General Security Insurance Company of Canada; Respondent (plaintiff): Howard Sand & Gravel Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 October 1954
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Mistake of Fact, Estoppel, Recovery of Money Paid to Defendant's Use, Public Commercial Vehicles Act, Insurable Interest, Agency/authority
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Tort Statutory Interpretation Agency Law Property/ownership Misrepresentation Mistake of Fact Estoppel +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

General Security Insurance Company of Canada

Appellant (defendant)

Howard Sand & Gravel Company Limited

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrangement between registered owner and real owner violated the Public Commercial Vehicles Act
  2. 2 Whether the insurer knew of the true ownership and made a material misrepresentation inducing payment
  3. 3 Whether the respondent can recover money paid as money paid to the insurer's use under principles in Moule v. Garrett

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangement did not infringe the Public Commercial Vehicles Act; the insurer knew the true ownership and by its misrepresentation induced the respondent to make the settlement payment; the insurer was estopped from denying liability and the moneys paid are recoverable as paid to the insurer's use under Moule v. Garrett; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent