Minister of Transport (Ontario) v. Canadian General Insurance

Minister of Transport (Ontario) v. Canadian General Insurance

Majority: The appellant failed to prove that the corporate lessee had consented or acquiesced to the son permitting others to drive; absent evidence that the controlling shareholder brought his mind to or authorized such delegation, implied consent by the lessee could not be inferred and the insurer was not obliged to indemnify.

Citation
[1972] SCR 234
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Minister of Transport for the Province of Ontario; Defendant/respondent: Canadian General Insurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 1972
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Insurance Indemnity / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority). Court of Appeal judgment allowing insurer's appeal affirmed; appellant cannot recover under the policy.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Clause, Consent to Drive, Implied Consent by Corporate Lessee, Policy Interpretation, Statutory Condition 2(b)
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Tort Contract Automobile Law Indemnity Clause Consent to Drive Implied Consent by Corporate Lessee Policy Interpretation +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Transport for the Province of Ontario

Plaintiff/appellant

Canadian General Insurance Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Insurance Indemnity / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vehicle was being driven with the lessee's consent
  2. 2 Whether the insurer was obliged to indemnify under the policy endorsement covering 'every other person who with the lessee's consent personally drives the automobile'
  3. 3 Whether consent of a corporate lessee can be implied from the conduct of its controlling shareholder or an entrusted family member

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The appellant failed to prove that the corporate lessee had consented or acquiesced to the son permitting others to drive; absent evidence that the controlling shareholder brought his mind to or authorized such delegation, implied consent by the lessee could not be inferred and the insurer was not obliged to indemnify.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority). Court of Appeal judgment allowing insurer's appeal affirmed; appellant cannot recover under the policy.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario restored