Goudie v. The Canada Life Assurance Company
Appeal allowed because, while 'diagnosis' need not be communicated to the patient nor made by a treating physician and a pathological report can suffice, the medical report did not establish that a diagnosis of 'cancer (life-threatening)' as defined in the policy was made within ninety days, so there remained a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C42637
- Parties
- Appellant: Terence Goudie; Appellant: Greta Goudie; Respondent: The Canada Life Assurance Company; Respondent: TD Life Insurance Company; Respondent: The Toronto-Dominion Bank
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 24 March 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Order (motion and Appeal) Decided by Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside; costs awarded to appellants.
- Legal Topics
- Policy Interpretation, Meaning of Diagnosis, Tenable Triable Issue, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Terence Goudie
Appellant
Greta Goudie
Appellant
The Canada Life Assurance Company
Respondent
TD Life Insurance Company
Respondent
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Order (motion and Appeal) Decided by Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a 'diagnosis' in the policy requires communication to the patient or must be made by a treating physician
- 2 Whether a pathological report can constitute a diagnosis for policy purposes
- 3 Whether a diagnosis of 'cancer (life-threatening)' as defined in the policy was made within the ninety day period
Ratio Decidendi
Appeal allowed because, while 'diagnosis' need not be communicated to the patient nor made by a treating physician and a pathological report can suffice, the medical report did not establish that a diagnosis of 'cancer (life-threatening)' as defined in the policy was made within ninety days, so there remained a triable issue and the judgment below could not stand.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside; costs awarded to appellants.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Judgment rendered below set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Goudie v. The Canada Life Assurance Company Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-03-24 Docket numbers C42637 Judges Doherty, David H.; Sharpe, Robert J.; Armstrong, Robert Patrick Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20050324 DOCKET: C42637 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: TERENCE GOUDIE and GRETA GOUDIE (Plaintiffs/Appellants) v. THE CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, TD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK (Defendants/Respondents) BEFORE: DOHERTY, SHARPE & ARMSTRONG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Eric Williams for the appellants Kevin Nearing for the respondents HEARD: March 21, 2005 RELEASED ORALLY: March 21, 2005 On appeal from the order of Justice Giovanna Roccamo of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 14, 2004. ENDORSEMENT [1] We are satisfied that the appeal should be allowed. [2] We agree with counsel for the respondents that the word “diagnosis” in the policy does not require that any diagnosis be made or communicated to the patient before it is effective for the purposes of the policy. We also agree with counsel for the respondents that a diagnosis does not necessarily have to be made by a treating physician to be effective for the purposes of the policy. In some situations, a pathological report will constitute a diagnosis. [3] The policy, however, defines “cancer (life-threatening)” to exclude some cancers. The diagnosis referred to in the policy must be a diagnosis of “cancer (life-threatening)” as defined in the policy. The report completed by the doctor does not indicate whether the cancer detected by the pathologist constituted cancer (life-threatening). In fact, the doctor did not answer that specific question contained on the form provided to him by the respondents. The doctor’s comments in answer to that question could be read as indicating that he did not regard Mr. Goudie’s cancer as coming within the meaning of the phrase “cancer (life-threatening)”. [4] Consequently, it cannot be said that there is no triable issue as to whether a diagnosis of “cancer (life-threatening)” as defined in the policy was made within the ninety day period. [5] The appeal is allowed and the judgment rendered below set aside. [6] The appellants are entitled to costs on the motion and on the appeal. We fix those costs at $8,000.00, inclusive of GST and disbursements. “Doherty J.A.” “Robert J. Sharpe J.A.” “Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”