Cameron et al. v. Excelsior Life Insurance Co.

Cameron et al. v. Excelsior Life Insurance Co.

Under the Judicature Act, 1972 (N.S.) and the Rules of Court (Rule 34.09(4)), a trial judge sitting with a jury must give judgment not inconsistent with the jury's answers; the Court of Appeal erred by endorsing the trial judge's judgment that contradicted the jury where the jury's negative finding on criminal conduct was supported by evidence (including doubts about blood evidence and alternative causal theories), and therefore judgment must be entered for the appellants in accordance with the jury's findings.

Citation
[1981] 1 SCR 138
Parties
Plaintiffs/appellants: Kathleen Cameron; Kimberly Cameron; Gordon H. Cameron (by guardian ad litem Kathleen Cameron); Defendant/respondent: The Excelsior Life Insurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 1981
Procedural Posture
Civil (insurance) With Criminal Law Issue / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Double Indemnity, Jury Verdict Review, Judgment Inconsistent With Jury, Causation, Appellate Review, Rules of Court
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Criminal Law Evidence Law Double Indemnity Jury Verdict Review Judgment Inconsistent With Jury Causation +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathleen Cameron; Kimberly Cameron; Gordon H. Cameron (by guardian ad litem Kathleen Cameron)

Plaintiffs/appellants

The Excelsior Life Insurance Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (insurance) With Criminal Law Issue / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge sitting with a jury may enter judgment inconsistent with the jury's answers under the Judicature Act, 1972 (N.S.) and Rules of Court
  2. 2 Whether the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal properly set aside the jury verdict by adopting the trial judge's assessment
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supported the jury's finding that the insured's death did not result, in whole or in part, from commission of a criminal offence (impairment and causation)

Ratio Decidendi

Under the Judicature Act, 1972 (N.S.) and the Rules of Court (Rule 34.09(4)), a trial judge sitting with a jury must give judgment not inconsistent with the jury's answers; the Court of Appeal erred by endorsing the trial judge's judgment that contradicted the jury where the jury's negative finding on criminal conduct was supported by evidence (including doubts about blood evidence and alternative causal theories), and therefore judgment must be entered for the appellants in accordance with the jury's findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the judgments of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and the trial judge
  • Enter judgment for the appellants in accordance with the jury findings