Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd v Maritime Life Assurance Co

Maritime Life accepted late life-insurance premium payments for years before suddenly refusing one. The SCC held there was no waiver and no estoppel — the prior acceptances did not amount to an unambiguous representation that strict timing would not be enforced.

The Bauers held a life-insurance policy. They consistently paid premiums after the grace period; Maritime accepted them. After Mr. Bauer's death, Maritime declined a particular late payment and disputed cover.

When is a contractual right waived? When does promissory estoppel arise?

No waiver; no estoppel. Maritime entitled to insist on strict timing.

Waiver requires full knowledge of the rights and an unequivocal and conscious intention to abandon them. Promissory estoppel requires (1) an unambiguous representation by words or conduct that strict legal rights will not be enforced, (2) reasonable reliance, and (3) detriment to the relying party.

Major J held that consistent past acceptance of late premiums was not, without more, an unambiguous representation that strict timing was permanently relaxed. Estoppel cannot be founded on routine accommodation absent clear assurance.

Standard authority on Canadian contract waiver and promissory estoppel. Cited in commercial-litigation cases involving conduct-based modification claims. Often paired with John Burrows for the reasonable-reliance branch.

Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd v Maritime Life Assurance Co, [1994] 2 SCR 490, 1994 CanLII 100 (SCC).

Lamer CJ, La Forest J, L'Heureux-Dubé J, Sopinka J, Gonthier J, Cory J, McLachlin J, Iacobucci J, Major J