Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The central issue is whether the Defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the portion of the claim relating to Manufacturer's Life Insurance Company life insurance policy proceeds should succeed on limitations grounds.
• Competing affidavit evidence presents sharply divergent accounts of when the Plaintiff knew — or ought to have known — of the alleged loss, making the limitation period question heavily fact-driven.
• The Plaintiff was a minor when her father died, was not given a copy of his will or any life insurance policy documents, and was told by the Defendant that no further distributions would occur until her 21st birthday.
• Disputed facts include whether the Plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the insurance proceeds after her 18th birthday to trigger the two-year limitation period under New Brunswick's Limitation of Actions Act, SNB 2009, c L-8.5.
• Under the two-step test from Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, the Court found it could not fairly and justly adjudicate the limitation period issue on the filed affidavit evidence alone.
• Credibility assessments and fulsome oral testimony are required, making a trial — rather than summary judgment — the proportionate and just means of resolving the dispute.

Facts of the case

Hallie Wedge commenced an action against Dawn Joudrey by filing a Notice of Action with Statement of Claim on April 23, 2024, in the Court of King's Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Division, Judicial District of Saint John. The claim arose from the death of the Plaintiff's father, who died when Wedge was 17 years old. Following her father's death, Wedge was placed in the care of the Defendant in accordance with her father's wishes. Wedge was not provided with a copy of her father's last will and testament or any life insurance policy documents. She was advised that she was entitled to certain funds on her 18th birthday, which she received on time and without issue, and was then told by Joudrey — in a position of trust — that she would receive no further benefits from her father's affairs until her 21st birthday. In the interim, Wedge received only limited provisions to cover immediate expenses. The Plaintiff's broader claim encompasses the distribution of inheritance funds under her father's will, the distribution of proceeds under a Manufacturer's Life Insurance Company life insurance policy held by her father, and allegations of misapplication, misappropriation, and conversion of the life insurance funds, negligence, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and bad faith.

Policy terms and contractual provisions at issue

No specific policy terms or contractual clauses from the Manufacturer's Life Insurance Company life insurance policy were quoted or reproduced in the decision. The document establishes that Wedge was entitled to 30% of the life insurance proceeds and that a payment arrangement existed, with distributions contemplated at certain milestone ages. The central dispute concerns whether the Plaintiff's entitlement to the insurance proceeds was properly disclosed and administered by the Defendant, who held the proceeds as a trustee or in a fiduciary capacity.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Doyle approached the motion applying the two-step summary judgment framework established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, as described by Justice Morrison in Alphataho Inc., et al v. Maaco Canada Partnership LP, et al, 2022 NBQB 25 (CanLII), and further refined by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in Russell et al v. Northumberland Co-Operative Ltd., 2019 NBCA 70. Under step one, the Court must determine whether the filed evidence reveals a genuine issue requiring a trial; step two — the mini-trial — is discretionary and is only engaged if step one cannot resolve the matter.

The Defendant argued that the limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act commenced on the Plaintiff's 19th birthday, May 31, 2021, when she reached the age of majority, and expired on her 21st birthday, May 31, 2023 — before the action was filed in April 2024. The Defendant further contended that the Plaintiff was aware of the insurance proceeds from Manufacturer's Life Insurance Company prior to her 19th birthday, that she could have contacted the insurer directly as it had sent her a letter following her 18th birthday, and that her failure to do so or to retain legal counsel could not extend the limitation period. The Defendant relied on Nicholas v. Tétrault, 2008 CanLII 54974 (ON SC), for the proposition that a legally mistaken belief about when payment was due does not toll the limitation period.

The Plaintiff countered that she was completely unaware of any wrongdoing until, at the earliest, May 28, 2023 — just prior to her 21st birthday — when, during a meeting to discuss the anticipated distribution, the Defendant instead disclosed that there were no funds available. The Plaintiff maintained that for the preceding three years she had been assured by the Defendant that the next distribution would occur at age 21.

Justice Doyle was satisfied, based on the parties' submissions and the affidavit evidence, that a genuine issue requiring a trial exists with respect to the limitation period question. The Court found that the competing affidavit evidence did not allow for a fair and just determination of the issue on paper, as the different positions were heavily fact-driven and their resolution would depend on fulsome oral testimony and cross-examination, including credibility assessments of the affiants. The Court also declined to exercise its discretion to proceed to step two and conduct a mini-trial, finding that a mini-trial would not be a proportionate, more expeditious, or less expensive means to achieve a just result — given that the factual findings on the limitation issue would also be critical to the determination of the remaining claims, necessitating a trial proper in any event.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Doyle dismissed the Defendant Dawn Joudrey's motion for summary judgment. The motion, which sought to dismiss the portion of Hallie Wedge's claim relating to the Manufacturer's Life Insurance Company life insurance policy proceeds (as set out in paragraphs 10 to 19 of the Notice of Action with Statement of Claim Attached), was denied, and the matter will proceed to trial. The Plaintiff, Hallie Wedge, was the successful party on this motion. Costs were ordered payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in the amount of $3,000.00, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable forthwith.