Canada Case Law

The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1544 v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada and in French, Royal & Sun Alliance du Canada, Societe D'Assurances

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Receivership Funds Agreement did not substantially alter the landscape of the Condominium Action because its salient terms (receivership, insurer subrogation and cooperation obligations, and the insurer's undertaking to complete certain remedial work potentially using receiver funds) were already disclosed in the pleadings and correspondence; therefore immediate disclosure was not required and LHR's application for a stay or dismissal as an abuse of process was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Subrogation
• Breach of warranty
• Abuse of process
• Disclosure of settlement agreements
• Receivership funds distribution
• Negligence

Read case analysis

Derenzis v. Ontario

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Court of Appeal set aside a Rule 30.10 production order against Tribunals Ontario, finding the requested tribunal records were not shown to be probative or necessary.

• Non-party production (rule 30.10)
• Deliberative secrecy (litigation privilege)
• Solicitor-client privilege
• Adjudicative independence
• Section 96 challenge
• Charter ss.7 and 15 challenges

Read case analysis

Keltic (Prior) Development Limited Partnership v. Van Renesse Investment Company Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck multiple portions of the amended response because, assuming the pleaded facts, they disclosed no reasonable defence, were irrelevant or prejudicial: commercial negotiation precluded contra proferentem arguments; indemnity and "as is" clauses did not permit contracting out of the EMA; a purchase agreement with an indemnity clause is not an insurance contract under the Insurance Act; limitation and offset defences were inadequately pleaded. The court refused to extend time to file the proposed counterclaim because the proposed claim was legally weak, materially different in sub…

Source excerpt

• Indemnity clause
• Contaminated site remediation
• Strike pleadings
• Counterclaim extension
• Contra proferentem
• Duty of utmost good faith

Read case analysis

Green Rise Foods Inc. v. N.V. Hagelunie

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside summary judgment in a greenhouse insurance dispute, holding the motion judge misapplied causation analysis and failed to resolve key factual issues.

• Coverage
• Causation
• Policy interpretation
• Exclusions
• Summary judgment
• Onus of proof

Read case analysis

Chanderpaul v. Caesars Convention Centre Ltd.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Court of Appeal upholds dismissal of claims against the Kauras and R.K.S., leaves the overservice claim against Caesars to proceed, and dismisses both appeal and cross-appeal.

• Overservice/liquor liability
• Piercing the corporate veil
• Summary judgment
• Rule 21 striking pleadings
• Statute of limitations
• Duty to insure

Read case analysis

Chubb Insurance Company of Canada v. Zurich Insurance Company

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal reinstated an arbitrator’s award requiring Chubb to pay Ms. Singh’s benefits, holding the appeal judge wrongly treated Chubb and Zurich as equal-priority insurers.

• Priority of insurers under insurance act s.268
• Statutory accident benefits
• Regulation 283/95 ss.2-3 notice and pay-now-dispute-later regime
• Sanctions for regulatory breach
• Standard of review for appeals from arbitration
• Insurance-law

Read case analysis

mCloud Technologies Corp. v. Wynward Insurance Group

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court has jurisdiction to consider applications to amend leave applications after the s.60 30-day period, but must refuse amendments that are so significant they effectively constitute an application for extension of time; the proposed amendments here fundamentally reframed the appeal and therefore were dismissed as an impermissible extension of time.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Amendment of leave application
• Statutory time limits
• Extension of time
• Security for costs
• Directors' liability

Read case analysis

Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. John's v. Guardian Insurance Company of Canada

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the trial judge’s finding that RCEC’s failure to disclose known allegations of clergy sexual abuse constituted a material non-disclosure entitling Guardian to void the CGL policy, but reversed the judge’s finding of fraud because the insurer did not prove RCEC’s subjective knowledge that the omissions were material to the insurer; therefore if Guardian voids the policy it must refund premiums paid.

Source excerpt

• Duty of disclosure
• Material fact
• Voidable policy
• Fraudulent non-disclosure
• Return of premiums
• Mandatory reporting

Read case analysis

Stephen v. Baker

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court found on the balance of probabilities that (1) the Baker defendants were 100% liable for the First Accident (left turn into oncoming lane), (2) Gerrard admitted and was fully at fault for the Second Accident, and the defendants are equally responsible for damages; (3) the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries and developed Somatic Symptom Disorder with psychiatric overlay attributable to the accidents but CRPS was not established; (4) the plaintiff is disabled from the workforce but exaggerated functional limitations, so damages are reduced from plaintiff's projections; (5) awards…

Source excerpt

• Somatic symptom disorder (ssd)
• Complex regional pain syndrome (crps)
• Causation
• Liability apportionment
• Damages (general and pecuniary)
• Credibility and surveillance evidence

Read case analysis

Bahlak v. Veerman

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The jury's awards, including zero past income loss alongside substantial awards for other heads, were reconcilable on the evidence; Rule 12-6(7) was therefore not engaged and no retrial was ordered; judgment is to be entered in accordance with the jury verdict, subject to a possible s.83 Insurance (Vehicle) Act application by the defendants within 30 days.

Source excerpt

• Damages
• Jury verdict
• Retrial
• Inconsistency of verdict
• Entry of judgment
• Rule 12-6 sccr

Read case analysis