Christopher McKibbin

This endorsement arises from a case conference in a complex action involving TD Bank and numerous insurance underwriters.

The court addressed the management of three pending discovery motions (defendants' refusals, plaintiff's refusals, and defendants' motion for a second discovery representative) and trial management issues.

The court declined the plaintiff's request to expand their refusals motion, permitted the plaintiff to withdraw their existing refusals motion without prejudice, and vacated the scheduled trial date of September 13, 2021, as the action was not ready.

The court provided specific case management directions for completing discoveries, updating motion materials, and preparing for a future trial date.

Dentons Canada LLP ("Dentons") brought an application seeking declarations regarding insurance coverage for a social engineering fraud loss.

Trisura Guarantee Insurance Company ("Trisura"), the respondent insurer, moved to convert the application to an action under Rule 38.10(1)(b), arguing that there were disputed facts, unproduced evidence, and a need to consider other insurance policies and join other insurers.

Dentons subsequently narrowed its application to seek an "advisory opinion" on the interpretation of only the Computer Fraud Rider, without addressing other policy conditions or exclusions.

The court granted Trisura's motion, converting the application to an action.

The judge found that a full determination of coverage issues required a complete factual record, consideration of all potentially responsive policies, and the involvement of other insurers, which could not be achieved through a narrow application seeking an advisory opinion.

The court emphasized judicial efficiency and economy, consistent with Hryniak v Maudlin, to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants to adopt their discovery plan in an insurance action.

The court found that both parties had failed to engage collaboratively in the discovery planning process as required by Rule 29.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Master declined to impose either party's plan, instead ordering them to return to negotiations with specific guidelines for a more detailed and collaborative approach to discovery, emphasizing proportionality and efficiency.