2021 - LC - Mosten Investments v Manufacturers Life - Court of Appeal

  • (48/43) - 2. Case Law Interpreting ULPs 
    •  
  • [36] In Sattva, Rothstein J. described surrounding circumstances as:
    • “knowledge that was or reasonably ought to have been within the knowledge of both parties at or before the date of contracting” (at para 58).
    • Where an issue of standard form contract interpretation is engaged, such circumstances will exist.
      • However, they are, by definition, limited to what was or reasonably ought to have been known to the parties in all instances where that standard form contract exists.
      • The proper scope of evidence of surrounding circumstances in relation to these ULPs is very much at issue in these appeals
  • 2021 - Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
    • File number: CACV3407; CACV3408; CACV3409
    • 2021 0310 - LC - Mosten Investments v Manufacturers Life, Court of Appeal - Opinion - [link-162p]
    • canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/2021/2021skca36/2021skca36.html
    • 2021 0711 - canliiconnects - Summary of Mosten Investments LP v The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife Financial), by Law Society of Saskatchewan - [link]
    • 2021 0312 - canliiconnects - The Continuing Saga of Unintended Consequences in Life Insurance Contracts, by Peter S. Spiro - [link]
    • 2021 1105 - insurancebusinessmag.com - CLHIA supports Supreme Court decision on controversial life insurance case - [link]
      • It has denounced the actions of the limited partnership involved
      • On March 10, 2021, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled that 2018 provincial regulations prohibited life insurers from accepting deposits unrelated to insurance coverage.
      • The three limited partnerships embroiled in the contentious deposit scheme case then filed for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court
  • 2021 0310 - LC - Mosten Investments v Manufacturers Life, Court of Appeal - Opinion - [162p]
    • VI. ANALYSIS …… 40
      • B. Issues Common to All Three Matters ….. 41
        • 3. Terms of Art: Premium and Payment of Premiums …… 48
      • (p-?) - [96] Justice L’Heureux-Dubé went on to define legal term of art in the context of contract interpretation:
        • [43] After having specified the nature of “legal terms of art”, Lord Diplock stated the basic rule of judicial interpretation, as well as the methodology, that are applicable in that context (at p. 314):
        • The words and phrases...which are “terms of art” must therefore be given the meaning which attaches to them as terms of art;...