Citizen's Insurance Co. v. Parsons
| Citizens Insurance Co of Canada v Parsons | |
|---|---|
.svg) |
|
| Court | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
| Full case name | The Citizens Insurance Company of Canada and The Queen Insurance Company v Parsons |
| Decided | 26 November 1881 |
| Citation(s) | [1881] UKPC 49, [1881] 7 A.C. 96 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | Citizens' and The Queen Insurance Cos. v. Parsons 1880 CanLII 6, 4 SCR 215 (21 June 1880), affirming a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal |
| Appealed from | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Sir Barnes Peacock, Sir Montague Smith, Sir Robert P. Collier, Sir Richard Couch, Sir Arthur Hobhouse |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Sir Montague Smith |
| Keywords | |
| insurance, division of powers, trade and commerce, property and civil rights | |
Citizens Insurance Co of Canada v Parsons is a major Canadian constitutional case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It interpreted the property and civil rights clause of section 92(13) in the Constitution Act, 1867 to be read expansively, to include contracts related to insurance to be within the power of the provincial governments, but the countervailing Trade and Commerce clause of section 91(2) was to be read narrowly.
Parsons was the owner of a hardware store in Orangeville, Ontario, covered by an insurance policy provided by Citizens' Insurance Co. of Canada. At the time the policy was issued, he had a similar policy in effect with the Western Assurance Company. When a fire burnt down the store in August 1877, Citizens' refused to pay on the basis that the nondisclosure of the Western policy violated the terms of its policy and a statutory condition, under Ontario's Fire Insurance Policy Act. Parsons sued to collect on the policy and contended that it did not comply with the presentation requirements of the Act.
The Court of Queen's Bench entered a verdict in favour of Parsons. Citizens' appealed to the Court of Appeal bycontending that the Act was ultra vires because of federal jurisdiction over trade and commerce. The Court of Appeal agreed with the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal with costs.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, Sir Oliver Mowat, acting in his role as Attorney General for Ontario, intervened to champion Parson's case. The Court decided 3-2:
Ritchie CJ asserted that the regulation of insurance contracts fell under the provincial property and civil rights power:
Henri Elzéar Taschereau and John Wellington Gwynne, who dissented in the Supreme Court decision, advised Sir John A. Macdonald to consider intervening if necessary to have the decision appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In particular, Gwynne said:
...
Wikipedia