The appellant, a bus driver, was sued for sexual battery, negligent battery, and breach of fiduciary duty by a young woman.
He sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurance provider had a duty to defend him in the civil action.
The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury caused by any intentional or criminal act.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insurer had no duty to defend because the plaintiff's claims, properly construed, were based on intentional torts that fell within the policy's exclusion clause.
The Court also discussed the elements of the tort of sexual battery, with the majority holding that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving lack of consent, while the minority maintained that consent is an affirmative defence to be proven by the defendant.
