Manulife applied to have me disqualified from suing them, and lost.

On November 30, 2015, the BC Supreme Court dismissed arguments by the Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Company, attempting to have me disqualified from acting as plaintiff ‘s counsel in a breach of contract claim against them.

read more

Manulife guilty of fraudulent concealment.

A judge of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (“Manulife”) guilty of fraudulent concealment in Atchison v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company. The trial judgment is found at: Atchison v Manulife, 2002 ABQB 1121. Ms. Atchison’s husband was covered by a group life insurance policy with Manulife. He applied and paid for “excess” life insurance, in addition to his group coverage. The excess policy was issued, with coverage effective one month prior to his death in a boating accident. Manulife paid the...

read more

Manulife tried to use maternity leave to reduce bonus, and lost.

On April 22, 2015, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered Manulife  to pay damages of over $140,000 to a recruiter of financial advisors in a wrongful dismissal suit. The decision is noteworthy in that the court refused to allow Manulife to use its employee’s maternity leave as a reason to reduce her bonus payment. In Sowden v. Manulife Canada Ltd., the court ruled that Manulife owes damages to former employee Janice Sowden after she was dismissed in a “corporate restructuring”. In an earlier decision the court ruled, after a summary trial, that Sowden was entitled to...

read more

Did Manulife make “deliberately false” statements?

On January 16, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected an application by Manulife Financial to dismiss the action against it in Sells v. Manulife, 2014 ONSC 715. The judgment is found at: Sells v Manulife, 2014 ONSC 715. The plaintiffs in this action are former agents of Manulife. Their essential claim for their damages against Manulife is that Manulife made very serious but false and misleading statements regarding the plaintiffs’ work and practices while with Manulife which Manulife knew or ought to have known would make it impossible for the plaintiffs to obtain new...

read more

LTD claim reviewing MAY extend a limitation period.

An application by a long term disability insurer to dismiss a claim commenced by an insured on the basis that the claim was barred by the expiration of the limitation period. The application was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff. In White v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (c.o.b. Manulife), [2011] B.C.J. No. 2273, the plaintiff was insured for a long term disability benefits under a group policy issued by the defendant, Manulife Insurance. The plaintiff submitted an application for disability benefits on September 13, 2006. On July 12, 2007 Manulife advised the plaintiff that...

read more

Manulife bound by its own policy wording.

On August 17, 2009, The BC Supreme Court held that as between the limitation period in an insurance policy and the limitation period set out in Section 22(1) of the Insurance Act of British Columbia, the limitation period in the policy prevails so long as it is not shorter than that prescribed by Section 22(1). In Colgur v. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., 2009 BCSC 1125, the insurance company, Manulife, applied for a dismissal of the Ms. Colgur’s claim for long-term disability .  Ms. Colgur was employed by the Royal Bank of Canada as a customer service representative. She developed laryngitis...

read more