The Supreme Court of Canada will hear three appeals this week, its first week of sessions in the new year. Tomorrow’s case pits a town and a municipality against a developer, and on Wednesday the court will hear two companion insurance cases — likewise from Quebec — that involve compensation for moveable property in a hotel’s custody.
The Supreme Court of Canada will hear three appeals this week, its first week of sessions in the new year. Tomorrow’s case pits a town and a municipality against a developer, and on Wednesday the court will hear two companion insurance cases — likewise from Quebec — that involve compensation for moveable property in a hotel’s custody.
Jan. 9 – Quebec – Ville de Lorraine v. 2646-8926 Québec inc.
Municipal law: In 1989 the respondent, a developer, purchased land in a residential zone of the Town of Lorraine. In 1991, the town of Lorraine passed a bylaw that changed the zoning for 60 per cent of the respondent’s land in order to create a conservation zone, thereby preventing any residential development on that portion. In 2001, the respondent’s majority shareholder learned of the bylaw, and when Lorraine refused to amend it the developer brought an action in nullity against the bylaw in 2007, seeking damages and the removal of the infrastructures, as well as an action against the Municipality of Thérèse de Blainville, which implemented a plan that also changed the zoning for the respondent’s land.
Read the Quebec appellate court decision here.
Related news story:
Vision for Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue's northern sector comes into focus; Montreal Gazette
Jan. 10 – Quebec – Éconolodge Aéroport v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada
Insurance law: Éconolodge Aéroport hotel offered a park-and-fly service that included parking for guests’ cars while they were out of the country. After a guest’s vehicle was stolen from the hotel’s parking lot, he filed a claim with his insurer that compensated him and, in return, brought an action in subrogation against the hotel. The hotel argued that the claim was covered by its insurance policy and brought an action in warranty against Lombard Insurance. But Lombard refused to defend Éconolodge, arguing that “custody, control or management” exclusion in the insurance policy applied.
Read the Quebec appellate court decision here.
Related legal brief:
Cour suprême: qui est responsable pour ces autos volées?; Droit-Inc.
January 10 – Quebec – Promutuel Insurance Portneuf-Champlain v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada
Insurance law: Companion case to the above. Éconolodge Aéroport hotel offered a park-and-fly service that included parking for guests’ cars while they were out of the country. After a guest’s vehicle that was insured by the applicant was stolen from the hotel’s parking lot, the applicant compensated its insured and, in return, brought an action in subrogation against the respondent, the hotel’s insurance company. The respondent denied the insurance coverage, relying on the exclusion clause for movable property that was in the hotel’s custody or that the hotel had the power to control or manage.
Read the Quebec appellate court decision here.
