Henni v. Food Network Canada Inc.
Page 15
confidence and unjust enrichment) will, at the end of the day, be the central issue in
the action. Put differently, if the defendants prevail on their interpretation of the
Release, the plaintiffs’ claims cannot succeed. Conversely, if the plaintiffs prevail on
their interpretation of the Release, then they may succeed against the defendants on
some or all of their claims.
[48] In that way, this case is akin to Nelson Marketing, where a Master’s decision
finding that interpretation of an insurance policy was a principal issue in the litigation
and striking a jury notice on that basis was upheld on appeal. In so concluding,
Justice McEwan approved of the approach taken in Bell v. AXA Pacific Insurance
Co., [1997] B.C.J. No. 2026, 1997 2487 (S.C.):
[15]
In Bell v. AXA Pacific Insurance Co., [1997] B.C.J. No. 2026
(B.C.S.C.), Master McCallum dealt with a case where the parties were at
odds over whether the principal issue was the construction of a fire insurance
policy, or whether it was the “cause” of the fire. Master McCallum made the
following observations:
¶17 This is a case where the principal question at issue is
one of construction of the policy of insurance issued by Axa
and upon which the plaintiffs rely. The causation issue will
undoubtedly be important but it could not be said, in my view,
that a finding in favour of the plaintiffs on the causation issue
will necessarily resolve the litigation. The defendants are
entitled to rely upon the wording of the policy with respect to
misrepresentation at last and the issue of construction will
become the principal question even in those circumstances.
The framers of the rules elected to take from juries trial where
the principal question is one of construction of a contract.
Ultimately this proceeding will involve as its central theme
construction of the policy of insurance issued by Axa to the
plaintiffs. As in Watchel, the court will be required to make
findings of fact with respect to the cause of the fire. I am not
persuaded that resolution of the factual issue involving
causation will necessarily resolve the proceeding.
[16]
…
This strikes me as the right way to approach such questions.
[18]
I think that to seize upon the phrase “the sole or principal question at
issue” as if one must then weigh the issues of fact against the “questions at
issue” referred to in Rule 10(1)(b) to determine which should be declared
“principal” is to adopt a somewhat flawed analysis. In Bell, Master McCallum
asked himself whether the resolution of the causation issue (ie, the issues of
fact) would “necessarily resolve the litigation”. I think that approximates the
proper test, which really must be whether, once the facts are decided, there