Andrew Valela

The Town of Caledon sought a declaration that the respondents failed to comply with a consent order requiring removal of structures, trucks, trailers, and equipment from their property.

The respondents argued substantial compliance and requested more time.

The court interpreted the order as requiring removal of all such items, not just those associated with a transportation depot, and found the respondents in breach.

The respondents were given 60 days to comply, after which the Town may remove the items at the respondents’ expense.

Michael Pryce, a licensed paralegal, sought professional negligence coverage under a LawPro policy issued to Jamie Bruce, a lawyer at his firm.

LawPro accepted coverage for the lawyer and the firm but declined coverage for Pryce, who was separately insured under a mandatory Paralegal Professional Liability policy issued by Lloyd’s Underwriters.

The court examined the LawPro policy wording, its commercial background, and the theory of vicarious liability.

It found that the LawPro policy explicitly insures lawyers and their firms only in relation to the professional services of lawyers, not paralegals.

The regulatory scheme mandates separate insurance for lawyers and paralegals, supporting the interpretation that LawPro's policy does not cover paralegals.

The court also rejected the argument that an employer's vicarious liability extends to an insurer's duty to defend an employee not covered by the policy.

The application for coverage was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to fulfill discovery undertakings and answer refused questions.

The court ruled that leave under Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was not required for motions related to undertakings or refusals, interpreting Rule 48.04(2)(b)(iii) as an exception.

The court ordered the defendants to provide contact information for former employees, produce the "I Make It Right" guidelines, and the complete RBC Claims Manual.

It denied the request for information on the number of drug testing requests on other files due to proportionality concerns.

The court ordered a further and better answer regarding the generation of a payment chart.

It also addressed the discoverability of RBC's profitability, declining to compel detailed financial information at this stage, consistent with the principles against premature disclosure before liability is established in bad faith claims.