Hyperlawhypertext legal database Canadian Indemnity Co. v. Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board et al. [1971] SCR 493

← Cases

Canadian Indemnity Co. v. Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board et al.

[1971] SCR 493 Court SCC Decision date 1970-11-27 English

PartiesCanadian Indemnity Company (Defendant) Appellant·Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board (Plaintiff) Respondent·Whillis-Harding Insurance Agencies Ltd. (Defendant). Appellant·Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board (Plaintiff) Appellant·Whillis-Harding Insurance Agencies Ltd. (Defendant) Respondent

Counsel (6)
H.E. Hutcheon, Q.C., and K.J. Yule, for the appellant, Canadian Indemnity Co.
W.A. Esson, for the respondent (appellant by cross-appeal), Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board.
J.P. van der Hoop, for the respondent, Whillis-Harding Insurance Agencies Ltd.
Solicitors for the appellant, Canadian Indemnity Co.: Guild, Yule, Schmitt, Lane, Hutcheon & Collier, Vancouver.
Solicitors for the respondent, appellant by cross-appeal, Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board: Bull, Housser & Tupper, Vancouver.
Solicitors for the respondent, Whillis-Harding Insurance Agencies Ltd.: Harper, Gilmour, Grey & Co., Vancouver.

Judges Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Hall, Emmett Matthew; Laskin, Bora

Delivered by Judgment of the Court

On appeal from British Columbia

Subjects Insurance

Contents

Judgment of the Court

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

Whillis-Harding assured the plaintiff that the new bond would be the same as the old. Mr. Harding was quite frank to admit that his company’s primary duty was to get what their clients wanted.
Mr. Harding made no effort to get in touch with Mr. Wilson or Mr. Lennie who had arranged the original bond.
Mr. Harding gave the plaintiff’s officers the impression that the execution of the application form was required only by reason of the change in bonding companies.
Whillis-Harding made no attempt to renew the original bond with General Accident; it preferred for its own reasons to deal with Canadian Indemnity.
Canadian Indemnity would not have issued the bond without the expectation of the indemnity clause being executed by the plaintiff.
The bond with the indemnity clause executed was nearly worthless to the plaintiff. It could of course result in the minor advantage of creditors being paid while the plaintiff was trying to raise the money to honour the indemnification clause. On the other hand, if the loss were greater than the worth of the plaintiff,

Footnotes

  1. [1] (1969), 71 W.W.R. 669.
  2. [2] [1969] 3 W.L.R. 139, [1969] 2 All E.R. 1215.
  3. [3] [1951] 1 K.B. 805.
  4. [4] [1968] 2 All E.R. 187.