APPELLANT; * Mar. 24. AND*
April MILDRED GOODERHAM ...........
RESPONDENT. ON APPEAL FROM THE APPEAL OF ONTARIO In then years of age, residing in Toronto, Ontario, obtained an insurance policy against disability from accident or sickness. His application therefor, attached to the policy, was for a "non-cancelable income policy," and designated his wife as beneficiary. By provisions of the policy, it expired one year from date except as it might be continued by renewal for terms of one year each (or by a certain period of grace), and until the insured became 60 years of age he should have the right to renew the policy from year to year by payment of premium. The policy was kept alive by payment of annual premiums. In 1934, G. was declared, under R.S.O. 1927, c. 98, to be incapable of managing his affairs, and a committee of his estate was appointed.
The main question in dispute was whether the monthly payments made by the insurance company under the policy during G.'s disability belonged to the committee or to G.'s wife. Sec. 178 of the Ontario Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1914, c. 183, in force when the policy was issued, provided that where the contract of insurance or declaration provided that the insurance money should be for the benefit of a "preferred beneficiary" (that term including a wife), such contract or declaration should (subject as therein provided) create a trust in favour of such beneficiary and that "so long as any object of the trust remains the money payable under the contract shall not be subject to the control of the assured, or of his creditors, or form part of his estate." The committee contended that any trust thereby created in respect of the policy in question had been destroyed by subsequent statutory enactments.
Held: G.'s wife was entitled to the proceeds of the policy. By said designation of her as beneficiary and the operation of said s. 178, a trust was created in her favour; and it was impossible, on the general language of the subsequent amendments, to conclude that the legislature thereby destroyed or intended to destroy said trust or the operation and effect of the above quoted provision in said s. 178. (The subsequent enactments dealt with in the judgment included, inter alia, 1924, c. 50, ss. 114, 134, 135, 136, 139, 177 (3), 180; 1928, c. 35, ss. 4, 6 (2), and new statutory condition substituted for that * PRESENT:-Duff CJ. and Rinfret, Cannon, Crocket and Davis JJ.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- s. 178
- ss. 114
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 139
- 177
- ss. 4
- 6