10.14.05
Black Letter Law
Everyone should read Justice John Laskin’s judgments. Each is a lesson on how effective legal writing can be when it is pithy, direct, and cast in short sentences.
Take for instance the April 20, 2005 decision of the Court of Appeal in Tuttle v. The Travelers Indemnity Company. In three short introductory paragraphs, Justice Laskin set out the essential facts, the result below, his own disposition and the reason why.
The head note writer could simply say, “see below.�
Certainly the conclusion reached won’t come up much: an insurer under a U.S. “collision only� insurance policy is not caught by the “no subrogation� rule in section 263 of the Insurance Act because, unlike all Ontario policies providing such coverage, it is not a motor vehicle liability policy.
The broader conclusion is of more importance. The result may seem unfair because an insurer who received a premium for collision coverage will obtain reimbursement from another insurer who did not. However, just because the legislative draftsman did not anticipate the possibility of this result is no reason for the court to re-write the statute. This is not black letter law. It is simple recognition of where an appellate court can go.