Turek v. Kaycan

The appeal is allowed because the motion judge erred in preferring one expert opinion on Quebec law over another on a summary judgment motion; competing expert opinions about the application of foreign law created a genuine issue for trial and required the summary judgment to be set aside.

Citation: C45589
Parties: Plaintiff/appellant: Zbigniew Turek; Defendant/respondent: Kaycan Group of Companies; Defendant/respondent: Stephane Marcotte carrying on business under DENEIGEMENT S. MARCOTTE ENR.
Court: Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 20 October 2006
Procedural Posture: Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome: Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside.
Legal Topics: Summary Judgment, Foreign Law, Expert Evidence, Quebec Automobile Insurance Act, Choice of Law
Source Language: English

Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Insurance Law Summary Judgment Foreign Law Expert Evidence Quebec Automobile Insurance Act Choice of Law

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Zbigniew Turek

Plaintiff/appellant

Kaycan Group of Companies

Defendant/respondent

Stephane Marcotte carrying on business under DENEIGEMENT S. MARCOTTE ENR.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether there was any genuine issue for trial on the motion for summary judgment
2 Whether foreign law (Quebec law) is a question of fact and whether the motion judge erred in resolving competing expert opinions on foreign law
3 Whether the application of the Quebec Automobile Insurance Act prohibition to the facts required a trial

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside.

Orders

Summary judgment set aside.
Costs of the appeal and below agreed at $10,000 all inclusive payable to the appellant.