Hanes v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co.

Hanes v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co.

Majority: In a civil action alleging breach of a statutory policy condition based on alleged intoxication, the question of intoxication is to be determined on the balance of probabilities; the trial judge's finding that the appellant was intoxicated on that standard was supported by evidence and entitled the respondent to reimbursement under s.214(8), so the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial was unnecessary. Dissent: evidence was insufficient on the balance of probabilities and the trial judge was correct to refuse to treat witnesses as adverse.

Citation
[1963] SCR 154
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Ralph Hanes; Respondent/plaintiff: The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 January 1963
Procedural Posture
Action for Reimbursement Under the Insurance Act (automobile Insurance) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (cross‑appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Intoxication, Standard of Proof in Civil Cases, Admissibility of Prior Inconsistent Statements, Interpretation of Statutory Condition in Insurance Policy, Reimbursement Under S.214(8) of the Insurance Act
Source Language
English
Insurance Evidence Civil Procedure Intoxication Standard of Proof in Civil Cases Admissibility of Prior Inconsistent Statements Interpretation of Statutory Condition in Insurance Policy Reimbursement Under S.214(8) of the Insurance Act

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ralph Hanes

Appellant/defendant

The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Action for Reimbursement Under the Insurance Act (automobile Insurance) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (cross‑appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the standard of proof for a civil action requiring proof of alleged criminal or quasi‑criminal conduct is balance of probabilities or proof beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was intoxicated at the time of the accident to the extent of being incapable of proper control of the automobile (breach of statutory condition 2(1)(a))
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge properly refused to declare certain witnesses "adverse" under s.24 of The Evidence Act and thus properly excluded prior inconsistent statements

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: In a civil action alleging breach of a statutory policy condition based on alleged intoxication, the question of intoxication is to be determined on the balance of probabilities; the trial judge's finding that the appellant was intoxicated on that standard was supported by evidence and entitled the respondent to reimbursement under s.214(8), so the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial was unnecessary. Dissent: evidence was insufficient on the balance of probabilities and the trial judge was correct to refuse to treat witnesses as adverse.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Court of Appeal varied
  • Judgment entered for plaintiff‑respondent The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company against defendant‑appellant Ralph Hanes for $22,174.85