Bruce A. Thomas

This decision concerns a consent certification motion in a class action arising from a six-alarm electrical fire at 650 Parliament Street, Toronto, which displaced hundreds of tenants.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding against the core defendants, Parwell Investments Inc. and 650 Parliament (LHB) Investments Limited, on the common issue of negligence.

The certification was granted based on the parties' agreement, satisfying the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including an identifiable class, common issues, preferability of a class proceeding, and suitable representative plaintiffs.

The order defined the class, appointed representative plaintiffs, declared negligence as the cause of action, and outlined specific common issues related to the defendants' duty and breach of care concerning the building's design, construction, operation, maintenance, and electrical systems.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

Cronnox Inc. sought declaratory relief for defence and indemnity coverage under an expired "claims-made-and-reported" professional liability policy issued by Lloyd's Underwriters.

Cronnox also claimed damages for breach of good faith.

Lloyd's Underwriters and International Programs Group (IPG) brought a cross-application for a declaration of no coverage.

The court found no legal relationship between Cronnox and Lloyd's at the time the claim was reported, as the policy had expired and the reporting period had passed.

Consequently, the doctrines of estoppel and waiver did not apply to create coverage or a new contract of insurance.

The court also found no breach of Lloyd's duties of fair dealing and good faith.

Cronnox's application was dismissed, and Lloyd's application for a declaration of no coverage was granted.

The applicant insurer, Liberty Mutual, brought an application for a declaration that coverage for its insured, Cronnox Inc., was excluded under a 'prior notice' exclusion in a professional liability policy.

Cronnox, an engineering company, was sued following an electrical explosion at a hotel where it provided design services.

Prior to the inception of the Liberty policy, Cronnox received correspondence from lawyers representing the hotel's property insurer and construction manager, advising of a potential claim and inviting Cronnox to notify its liability insurer.

The court found that the application was not premature and could be decided on the record.

Applying an objective test, the court concluded that a reasonable person in the insured's position could have reasonably expected that the acts alleged in the correspondence might give rise to a claim.

Therefore, the prior notice exclusion applied, and Liberty had no duty to defend or indemnify Cronnox.

The applicant, Freyssinet Canada Limitée, brought a Rule 21 motion to determine a question of law regarding whether Parkway Infrastructure Constructors (PIC) is precluded from recovering damages claimed in its counterclaim, which are also claimed against Builder's Risk insurers.

Freyssinet argued that a covenant to insure in the Project Agreement, and potentially an implied term in the Subcontract, allocated risk away from it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that material facts were in dispute, the enforceability and interpretation of the Subcontract were contested, and a full factual record was necessary for proper adjudication.

The court also found no legal bar to PIC's counterclaim, noting that PIC was not acting as an insurer bringing a subrogated claim against its own insured.

The defendants moved to remove the plaintiffs' law firm from the record in a commercial landlord-tenant dispute.

The defendants argued the firm previously acted for the defendant landlord on the purchase of the property, that a partner of the firm would be a witness, and that the firm was breaching its duty of loyalty.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the partner was unlikely to have relevant evidence regarding the accounting issues in dispute.

Furthermore, because there was no risk of disclosing confidential information and the firm was not attacking its own prior work or changing sides on a matter central to the previous retainer, the duty of loyalty was not breached.