Colin R. Dubeau

The defendant in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion for the production of documents over which the plaintiff claimed settlement and solicitor-client privilege.

The court reviewed the documents and found that privilege had been waived or exceptions applied, as the documents related to the implementation of a settlement and the plaintiff's access to independent legal advice, which were central to the defence.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce the documents, allowing only one redaction for specific legal advice.

The successful appellant brought an application to amend the Court of Appeal's previous reasons for judgment, which had inadvertently omitted the costs awarded in the underlying tort action from the indemnity order against the respondent insurer.

The insurer opposed the amendment on the basis that it was not a party to the tort action.

The Court granted the application, holding that the insurer's obligation to indemnify under s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act applies to the entire judgment recovered against the insured, including costs, regardless of whether the insurer was a party to the tort action.

The appellant was seriously injured when he was shot by a member of his hunting party who mistook him for a deer.

The shooter had driven his truck to the hunting site, stopped, exited the vehicle, and fired his rifle, using the truck's headlights to illuminate the target.

The appellant obtained a judgment against the shooter in negligence and subsequently sued the shooter's automobile insurer under s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the injuries did not arise from the use or operation of the vehicle.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the use of the truck to transport the shooter and illuminate the target satisfied the purpose and causation tests, meaning the damages arose indirectly from the use or operation of the automobile.