Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content





Citation: Zurich Insurance Co. v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada, 2015 SCC 19, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 134

Date: 20150417

Docket: 36002



Zurich Insurance Company



Chubb Insurance Company of Canada





Coram:  Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Côté JJ.


Reasons for Judgment:

(para. 1)

The Court




Zurich Insurance Co. v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada, 2015 SCC 19, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 134

Zurich Insurance Company                                                                           Appellant


Chubb Insurance Company of Canada                                                    Respondent

Indexed as: Zurich Insurance Co. v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada

2015 SCC 19

File No.: 36002.

2015: April 17.

Present:  Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Côté JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario


                    Insurance — Automobile insurance — Statutory accident benefits scheme — Claimant having declined optional motor vehicle liability policy from insurance company upon renting vehicle subsequently injured in single-vehicle accident — Insurance company refusing to provide benefits available under statutory scheme — Nexus between insurer and claimant — Application judge correctly found that arbitrator erred in concluding that insurance company not an insurer for purposes of statutory scheme — Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, s. 268 — Disputes Between Insurers, O. Reg. 283/95.


                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Juriansz, Pepall and Pardu JJ.A.), 2014 ONCA 400, 120 O.R. (3d) 161, 319 O.A.C. 287, 379 D.L.R. (4th) 427, 65 M.V.R. (6th) 159, 34 C.C.L.I. (5th) 216, [2014] I.L.R. I-5615, [2014] O.J. No. 2330 (QL), 2014 CarswellOnt 6274 (WL Can.), setting aside the decision of Goldstein J., 2012 ONSC 6363, 15 C.C.L.I. (5th) 287, [2013] I.L.R. I-5360, [2012] O.J. No. 5336 (QL), 2012 CarswellOnt 14170 (WL Can.). Appeal allowed.


                    Eric K. Grossman, Michael Warfe and Kate M. MacLeod, for the appellant.


                    Eugene Meehan, Q.C., and George Kanellakos, for the respondent.


                    The following is the judgment delivered orally by

[1]                              The Court We are of the view that the appeal should be allowed with costs for the reasons of Juriansz J.A.

                    Judgment accordingly.


                    Solicitors for the appellant: Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan, Toronto.


                    Solicitors for the respondent: Supreme Advocacy, Ottawa; KBM Law, Toronto.


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.