Canada Case Law

Ontario v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The court accepted that the application judge misinterpreted the Second Policy’s Occurrence clause and that there was a reasonable possibility of coverage under the Second Policy for Personal Injury (including wrongful detention). However, the appeal is dismissed because the Second Policy required the insured to bear Ultimate Net Loss (including defence costs) up to $5,000,000 before the insurer’s duty to defend arose; Ontario had incurred approximately $300,000 so the application for a declaration was premature and no duty to defend was triggered.

Source excerpt

• Duty to defend
• Insurance policy interpretation
• Occurrence clause
• Fortuity principle
• Nullification doctrine
• Self-insured retention

Read case analysis

Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville v. Co-operators General Insurance Company

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The data exclusion clauses are clear and unambiguous and define "data" to include representations of information in any form; the pleaded substance and true nature of both the class action and the third-party claim arises from the display/distribution of the confidential report via internet (including links/images), which falls squarely within the exclusions; therefore Co-operators has no duty to defend FCS or Laridae; applying the exclusions does not nullify the broader policy coverage or offend reasonable expectations.

Source excerpt

• Duty to defend
• Insurance policy interpretation
• Data exclusion
• Coverage dispute
• Class action
• Third-party claim

Read case analysis

Wang v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2970

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed. The Court held the proposed appeal from the CRT raised mixed fact and law, not a question of law under s. 56.5 of the CRTA.

• Leave to appeal
• Question of law
• Consent to appeal
• Implied consent
• Standard of care
• Insurance policy interpretation

Read case analysis

Burnaby (City) v. Intact Insurance Company

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that Intact must defend and indemnify Burnaby in an underlying motor-vehicle claim because the pleadings could arise out of the contractor’s operations.

• Duty to defend
• Insurance policy interpretation
• Indemnity
• Occupiers liability
• Additional insured endorsements
• Admissibility of extrinsic contractual documents

Read case analysis

Byrd v. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge correctly applied the pleadings rule: because the pleadings, given the required widest latitude and without a fanciful reading, alleged facts that could possibly bring the claims within the policy, the insurer had a duty to defend; the appeal challenging that conclusion was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Duty to defend
• Insurance policy interpretation
• Pleadings rule
• Indemnity
• Costs

Read case analysis

Ferro v. Weiner

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge erred by focusing on the respondents' use of the cottage rather than their relationship with the named insured; applying settled law the court concluded household membership requires family‑like integration, intimacy and settled intention to share a life, which was absent here; therefore the respondents were not "living in the same household" as the insured and are not covered; the appeal is allowed and summary judgment is entered for the appellants.

Source excerpt

• Definition of household
• Coverage clause interpretation
• Insurance policy interpretation
• Standard of review
• Liability coverage for seasonal residences

Read case analysis

Peters Estate v. Desjardin Securite Financiere

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge correctly applied the Hryniak summary judgment framework and the r.20.04(2.1) powers to evaluate evidence and draw permissible inferences, and concluded the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the death was accidental; therefore summary judgment dismissing the claim against Desjardins was upheld, but the dismissal of the separate claim against Metro was set aside because that claim was of a different nature and Metro did not participate in the motion.

Source excerpt

• Summary judgment
• Accidental death benefit
• Suicide exclusion
• Misrepresentation
• Insurance policy interpretation
• Appeal

Read case analysis

Banque de Commerce et de Placements, S.A. v. Bissma Pacific Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Clause 7 of the insurance policy, properly interpreted in context, treats a buyer's set-off claims as a 'dispute' that suspends EDC's contractual obligation to pay the insured claims; clause 7 defers payment pending determination of the dispute and is not an exclusionary clause to be construed contra proferentem, therefore the motion judge's interpretation was correct.

Source excerpt

• Insurance policy interpretation
• Set-off
• Accounts receivable insurance
• Contractual interpretation
• Costs

Read case analysis

Skipper Properties Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance Company Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held Zurich’s wrap-up policy was a liability policy only, so Skipper had no direct right to indemnity for damage to its own property.

• Insurance policy interpretation
• Additional insured status
• Liability vs first‑party coverage
• Indemnity obligations
• Policy exclusions
• Summary disposition

Read case analysis

Simpson Wigle Law LLP v. Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held the Statement of Claim advances at least two distinct claims arising from errors/omissions of sufficiently different nature and kind — (1) improper appointment of committees based on failure to disclose powers of attorney, and (2) improvident sales and negligent administration of real property — and therefore they are not "related" under the Policy; the application judge's single‑claim conclusion was set aside.

Source excerpt

• Insurance policy interpretation
• Coverage aggregation for related acts
• Definition of "related" errors/omissions
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Conflict of interest
• Policy exclusions for legal fees

Read case analysis