2 total
Appeal of order transferring subrogated claims to Superior Court dismissed as a proper exercise of discretion.
The appellants appealed an order transferring subrogated claims brought by one insurer to the Superior Court.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged access to justice concerns but found that the balancing of factors favoured the transfer because all claims were subrogated claims brought by a single insurer.
The court held that the transfer was a proper exercise of discretion, though one that should be rarely exercised.
The appeal was dismissed.
Insurer has a duty to defend trademark infringement claim; extrinsic evidence inadmissible on duty to defend application.
The insurer, Halifax, appealed an order to pay the insured's legal costs, and the insured, Innopex, cross-appealed a summary judgment declaring Halifax had no duty to defend it in a US trademark infringement lawsuit brought by Gucci.
The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by relying on extrinsic evidence to determine the 'true facts' rather than relying on the pleadings.
The Court held that the Gucci complaint contained allegations that could potentially fall within the 'advertising liability' coverage and the 'title' exception to the trademark exclusion in the policy.
Halifax was ordered to defend the action, and the summary judgment dismissing Innopex's counterclaim for punitive damages was set aside.
