Anne Andrews Juntunen

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to exceed the seven-hour limit for examination for discovery of the defendants' representative and an order allowing them to move without notice to strike the statement of defence for non-compliance with undertakings.

The court granted leave for an additional four hours of examination, exceeding the seven-hour limit by 2.4 hours, citing the voluminous additional productions and numerous undertakings.

However, the court denied the request to move without notice to strike the defence, emphasizing that striking a defence is an extreme remedy and defendants should have notice and an opportunity to respond to such a motion.

The plaintiff, 688857 Ontario Limited, sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully recovering $58,761 (plus interest, totaling approximately $66,000) in a fidelity insurance claim against Aviva Insurance Company of Canada.

The court determined it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have pursued the action under ordinary procedure, despite the recovery being below the Simplified Procedure threshold, due to the complexity of employee vs. independent contractor issues and bad faith claims.

The court declined substantial indemnity costs, finding no serious misconduct by the defendant, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The final award was $196,609.08, significantly less than the plaintiff's claim of $240,563, after adjustments for trial inefficiencies, counsel rates, and proportionality.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that the insurer had no duty to defend based on exclusions in the Commercial General Liability Policy.

The appellants argued that the care, custody, or control exclusion did not apply because some damage may have occurred after the vines left their care.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the pleadings alleged the defect was caused by the appellants' negligent treatment while the vines were in their care, custody, or control, triggering the exclusion.

Additionally, the court found that an alternative exclusion for damage resulting from fungi or spores also applied.

The respondent bank sought indemnity under an insurance policy for losses arising from a Ponzi scheme operated by a customer.

The bank obtained partial summary judgment on the interpretation of the "direct financial loss" element of the fidelity coverage section.

The appellants (insurers) appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in granting partial summary judgment on a constituent element of a claim rather than on the claim itself, failed to interpret the policy as a whole, adopted a theory of liability not advanced by the parties, and misconstrued the relief sought by the appellants.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order, and directed the action to proceed to trial.

This is a costs endorsement following several motions in complex insurance litigation between TD Bank and its fidelity insurers, primarily concerning a successful partial summary judgment motion by TD Bank.

The court addressed the administrative issue of simplifying the style of cause and then considered the principles for awarding costs, emphasizing the "culture shift" towards efficient litigation.

The court confirmed costs in the cause for an earlier production motion and awarded TD Bank $330,000 in all-inclusive costs for the motion for directions and the partial summary judgment motion, to be paid jointly and severally by the defendant insurers, allocated pro rata to their policy exposure.

The defendants, a consortium of insurers, brought a motion to clarify TD Bank's discovery obligations regarding documents subject to solicitor-client, litigation, and settlement/mediation privilege.

TD Bank was seeking indemnity under fidelity policies for amounts paid to settle 19 underlying lawsuits related to a Ponzi scheme.

The court ruled that TD Bank had not implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege through its pleadings.

It also found that litigation privilege for documents created for the underlying litigation was not lost upon settlement, given the close connection to the current coverage dispute.

However, the court determined that TD Bank could not assert settlement privilege over documents related to the underlying settlements, as these were crucial for the insurers to assess the reasonableness and allocation of damages for coverage purposes.