AI-generated from this judgment's text. It can contain errors and is not the official version.
No AI brief yet. Click to generate.
Lawlor v. Royal, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 260
Mary Lawlor Appellant v.
M.
Craig Royal Respondent
Indexed as: Lawlor v. Royal
File No.: 26212.
1998: November 13.
Present: L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for newfoundland
APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal (1997), 153 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 36, 475 A.P.R. 36, [1997] I.L.R. ¶1‑3487, [1997] N.J. No. 189 (QL), reversing a judgment of Wells J. (1996), 145 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1, 453 A.P.R. 1, [1997] I.L.R. ¶1‑3403, [1996] N.J. No. 236 (QL), holding that an automobile insurance policy was valid. Appeal allowed.
Neil Finkelstein, Matthew P. Gottlieb and Glen L. C. Noel, for the appellant.
Philip J. Buckingham and Dennis N. Clarke, for the respondent Oppenheim.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
//Iacobucci J.//
1 Iacobucci J. ‑‑ We are all of the view to allow this appeal substantially for the reasons of the trial judge, Wells J., and for the reasons of the dissenting judge in the Newfoundland Court of Appeal, Mahoney J.A. The Lloyd’s insurance policy was valid and binding in law and was not transferred or cancelled. Furthermore, there was no novation to release Lloyd’s from the obligations under its policy issued to Royal.
2 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with costs here and in the Court of Appeal, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside, and the decision of the trial judge is restored.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Davies, Ward & Beck, Toronto; Patterson, Palmer, Hunt, Murphy, St. John’s.
Solicitors for the respondent Oppenheim: McInnes Cooper & Robertson, St. John’s.