Brian John Eric Brock

The appellant insurer issued a comprehensive general liability policy to the respondent insured.

The insured was sued for wrongful dismissal, including allegations of intentional racial and age discrimination.

The insurer sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend the discrimination claims.

The application judge ruled the insurer was required to provide a defence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the fortuity principle of insurance law dictates that liability policies only cover accidental or fortuitous losses.

Because the underlying claims alleged intentional discrimination, they fell outside the scope of the policy, and the insurer had no duty to defend.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a case management master's order that denied full documentary production prior to a motion to stay the action for arbitration.

The Divisional Court clarified the standard of review for orders of case management masters, holding that discretionary decisions and interlocutory matters of law not vital to the disposition of the lawsuit are subject to a standard of deference and should not be interfered with unless clearly wrong.

Finding that the master's decision on documentary production was not vital to the disposition of the lawsuit, the court dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice action against the respondent family physician.

The appellants alleged the respondent over-prescribed narcotics, causing the appellant husband's addiction.

The motions judge dismissed the action as statute-barred under the one-year limitation period in the Regulated Health Professions Act, finding the appellants knew the material facts when they complained to the College of Physicians and Surgeons over two years before commencing the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the discoverability rule did not postpone the limitation period as the appellants were aware of the material facts and did not require an independent medical opinion to commence the action.

The appellant, a Minnesota resident injured in an Ontario motor vehicle accident, sued her Minnesota insurer in Ontario for statutory accident benefits.

The appeal turned on the effect of a power of attorney and undertaking signed under the reciprocal interjurisdictional automobile insurance scheme.

The Court of Appeal held that the undertaking required the insurer to accept service and appear in Ontario, and that the motions judge erred by failing to give effect to that agreement when granting a stay on forum non conveniens grounds.

Because a stay could deprive the appellant of the juridical advantage of Ontario statutory accident benefits, the stay was set aside and the appeal allowed.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their contractual claim under the S.E.F. 44 Family Protection Endorsement after they had agreed to limit recovery against the tortfeasor to the tortfeasor's policy limits.

The Court of Appeal held that, in a direct action against the insurer, the phrase 'legally entitled to recover' requires proof only that the inadequately insured motorist was at fault and that damages exceed the available limits.

The continued enforceability of the claim against the tortfeasor was held to be a non-issue, consistent with prior authority recognizing a direct contractual cause of action against the insurer.

The appeal was allowed, the Rule 21 answer was changed to 'No', and costs of the motion and appeal were awarded to the appellants.