Robitaille
and
Appellant
Marie-Jeanne
and
Hins-Dion
Respondent
New
cause
York R.C.S
ROBITAILLE
DION
359
Gerald Life Insurance
Company
Mis en
1978
October
26 1978
Dickson
November
21
Present
Pigeon
Beetz Estey and
Pratte
JJ
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR
QUEBEC
Exemption from seizure
an insurance Stipulation policy for the
Bankruptcy from
Benefit
of
Exemption
benefit
seizure clause
Code
art
arts
597
735
1028
third party Civil of Code of Civil Procedure
5533
1965
ance
Supplemental Pension Plans Act S.Q Husbands and Parents Life Insur Act R.S.Q 1964 296
25
31
Respondent
who assigned
the Superior the
as benefit
her property Court of
sitting
life
on
in
November
bankruptcy policy
28 1975
to
asked
that
declare
to
insurance
payable died on
her
universal
legatee of her
husband
who
December
25 1974
held of any
was exempt from
that this benefit
seizure could be
The
Superior
in to
Court
seized quent
seizure
satisfaction
debts
of the debtor but
subse
the opening
of the legacy of any debt the appellant
to
was exempt from
to this latter
in satisfaction
prior in
opening
of the
legacy the
The
trustee of Appeal
Court asked
part of the
Court
reverse the His appeal
Superior he
Court
to
decision
this
was dismissed and
appealed
Court
should be allowed the of the insurance her the univer legacy cannot under
since
Held The
appeal
Respondents
policy sal
rights
to
benefit
derive from
the will which
makes
universal
legatee of her regarded
as for heir
is
husband
The
be
the designation the not
benefit third
of
beneficiary
third
stipulation
of party
party
persons
his in legal
but the continuation
is
of
personality sense
As respondent
she cannot
rely
not on
beneficiary
the proper
seizure
the exemption art
from
the
in
the insurance
policy
or on
5533
of
Code of
Civil
Procedure
360
ROBITAILLE
DION
Pigeon
S.C.R
APPEAL
Appeal Superior allowed
of
against
decision affirming
of
the
Court
of
of the
Quebec
Court
judgment bankruptcy
sitting
in
Appeal
Louis Guimont for the appellant
Raynold Be/anger The judgment
Q.C
for the
respondent by
of
this
of the
Court was delivered an appeal
of the
PIGEON J.This Court from Quebec
of the ing the tion that
is
by leave
the decision
Court of Appeal
the
of
C.A 468
affirming
in life
judgment declar
in
Superior Court sitting the benefit under
of
bankruptcy
insurance
in
policy
amount
of
$20000
of to the
could
be seized
satisfac
any
debts
debtor opening
respondent
of the
Dame
Dion
legacy
subsequent
the
universal
made
in
her
favour by her husband
Marcel
Dion who died on December 25 1974 Respond ent is deemed to have made an authorized assign ment on November 28 1975
on
that the proposal she
filed
day
is
having
her
been
in
subsequently bankruptcy
of the
rejected
Appellant
trustee
He
claimed
of
from the mis en
the policy issued
cause payment on
the
life
amount
Court
of
respondents
the
hus
to
band
reverse
Respondent
the trustees
thereupon
decision
asked
The
policy
in
question
names as beneficiary
First
executors
administrators
or
assignees
of the insured
Under
there
is
the
heading
GENERAL PROVISIONS
clause
creditors
the following
17 To
the extent
Protection against by
permitted of
this to
law
and
all
subject
benefits
to
the
all
terms and
conditions
policy person
and and
money available or paid
any
whatsoever be
in
with this policy any way connected free from all contracts and debts person taxing
in
exempt and commitments of the
shall
question and
from
legal
proceedings
aimed
at
or seizing
them
It
was
on
the
basis the
of
this
provision
that held
the that
Superior Court and
there
Court of Appeal
was relying partial exemption from seizure of art 553 of the Code of Civil Proce para dure which reads as follows on
CA
468
R.C.S
ROBITAILLE
DION
Le Juge Pigeon
361
553
The following are exempt from seizure
Property from seizure
to
declared which
by
donor
or
testator
to
be
exempt
with he
may however
to
be
seized
by
creditors
posterior
the
gift or
the opening and
to
of the legacy the extent
the
permission
of
the judge
that
determines
The Superior Court
tion
said
in
concerning the
the policy
exemp
to
from seizure ..
clause
In
view
of clause
seizure
is
17
in
he intended favour
provide
for
an on
exemption
his
from This
of the
for
beneficiary
benefit
death
party
of
third
art
1029
CC Hall
368
stipulation
the
The
Canadian Indemnity
Co
S.C.R
To
this
the
Court of Appeal .. by the
will
added
the designated
this policy
legatee which
is
invested with already been the
policy to
all
the
rights
under
had
the
subject
of the insureds Since
policy
intention
when
to
was
an
issued insurance
the
latter
had
for
chosen
subscribe from
providing and
exemption of the
is
seizure
on by
the one on
hand
designation
beneficiary
will
the other
to
hand
the property
declared
required ing the
exempt from by the present art 5533 C.C.P
by
testator
be
seizure
In
as
determin
at
rights
of respondent contract than the
beneficiary cannot
will
in
the case from
bar the insurance
will
be excluded which
the the
any
more
can two
designates
beneficiary
It is
be excluded
from the insurance the
contract together being the
these
documents taken
the
rights to
which
interrelated
policy
specify
benefits
under
and
the conditions
governing
their
exercise
With respect
nitely the
must
say
that as the
respondent defi beneficiary
all
cannot
be considered
will
of her
policy
The
from which
universal
his
she derives legatee of
rights
makes
she
is
her
the
her
hus
she
in
band
her
therefore
legal representative the universal to legacy as
succeeded
him by
It
is
accepting
favour
an
error
view
this
the
designation
of
beneficiary as
The
the
universal
legacy of of the
is
cannot
be
regarded under
designation for the benefit
beneficiary third
stipulation her
party
Towards by
the
deceased cause
husband
597
person
not order
insured
mis en
respondent
third
party
to
but his heir be
art
CC.
In of
for there
stipulation
for the benefit
third third are
person
In the
benefit eyes of
must
the
be stipulated law
fora
party
persons heirs
for
not
third
parties
Stipulating
ones
heirs
362
ROBJTAILLEv.DION
Pigeonf
1S.C.R
and
legal representatives clearly
in
is
stipulating
for
as stated
art 1028 cannot
CC
and
oneself
Art 1028
person one
by
contract
his heirs
in his
own
legal
name
bind any
but himself
and
representatives
In
this
Court
effect
counsel should clause
for
the given
respondent
to the
con
tended
tion
that
be even
this
exemp
prohib
of
this It
is
from
seizure
towards the insured would
in
and
ited
his estate
because no
is
not
be
He
clear
cited
authority quite
support
submission which
quite that
simply untenable by by
contract
one from
cannot
protect creditors as
in
ones
except
property
seizure
ones such
under
special
enactment
the
Plans Act S.Q Pension 1965 Supplemental Thus it is perfectly clear that one cannot 25
31
make
will
bank
deposit
stipulating
It
it is
that also not
the clear
money
that as
to
be exempt
of
from seizure
result
art 735
C.C
so
is
possible
it
bequeath
seizure
ones by
property
as
to
protect
from
for
ones from
creditors seizure
The
in
provision the policy of
exemption
therefore
found
only third
in
can
true the
it
have
that
effect is
favor
beneficiary
benefit
is is
party
on
whom
case benefit
conferred
As
this
is
not the
here
not
necessary
is
to consider fact property
whether
declared the
thus to
conferred
in
by
donor
of
be exempt
from seizure above
nonetheless the
within
meaning
art
5533
cited
Should
it
be said as
is
in
the
Court of
as
Appeal
part since of for
it
that the
stipulation
to
be considered
to
will
legacy
This
to give
appears
rise
impossible
me
or the
to
an exemption from by donor
seizure testator
must be property
to
declared
be
exempt
from
condition not
seizure
or
in
French Here
version
the
sous
did
dinsaisissabilit
this
testator reasons
stipulate
condition
of the
For the
the
already only
is
set
out
this
condition
in
policy
can
apply to
third
beneficiary not
proper sense that of the insured
It
party
successor
should be
noted
moreover
is
that
in
any
event
such exemption from seizure
tive ing
necessarily
...