Daniel Freudman

The applicant, who was found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for an aggravated assault due to schizophrenia, sought a declaration that his insurer owed a duty to defend him in a civil action brought by the victim.

The victim's claim was framed in negligence.

The court found that the negligence claim was derivative of the intentional tort of assault.

Furthermore, the court held that despite the NCR finding, the applicant's actions were both intentional and criminal within the meaning of the insurance policy's exclusion clauses.

The application was dismissed, and the insurer was found to have no duty to defend.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion to strike, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis and requested that the costs be paid personally by the plaintiff's lawyers.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff lacked the mental capacity to instruct her counsel to commence the action.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity and personal costs, noting that if the defendants genuinely believed the plaintiff was under a disability, they should have sought the appointment of a litigation guardian or challenged the lawyers' authority under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs, including a software partnership and its investors, brought an action against the Canada Revenue Agency and its agents for negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches arising from a tax audit and subsequent criminal investigation into a suspected tax shelter fraud.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the auditor did not cross the line into a criminal investigation improperly, and that the investigators met the standard of care.

The court concluded there was substantial evidence supporting the CRA's belief that the enterprise was a fraudulent tax scheme, and no actionable wrongs were committed by the defendants.

During an abbreviated civil trial for negligent investigation against the Canada Revenue Agency, the defendants sought to introduce transcripts of testimony given by a now-deceased CRA auditor during a prior criminal preliminary inquiry.

The plaintiffs objected on the basis of hearsay.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding that the necessity criterion was met due to the auditor's death, and the reliability criterion was satisfied because the auditor had been rigorously cross-examined on relevant issues during the preliminary inquiry.

The transcripts were ruled admissible.

The applicant kickboxing gym sought a declaration that its insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify it in an underlying action.

The underlying action alleged that an employee of the gym sexually assaulted a plaintiff, and that the gym was liable for negligent supervision.

The insurer denied coverage based on an abuse exclusion clause.

The court found that while the abuse exclusion applied to negligence arising directly from the assault, the pleadings also alleged broader negligent supervision that could fall outside the exclusion.

Applying the principle that the mere possibility of coverage triggers the duty to defend, the court ordered the insurer to defend the gym, but held that the duty to indemnify was premature.

The Attorney General applied for civil forfeiture of $29,900 found in an abandoned suitcase.

The claimant asserted ownership of the cash.

The parties reached a settlement to forfeit $25,900 and return $4,000 to the claimant.

The court found the cash was the proceeds of unlawful activity and the claimant failed to prove legitimate ownership.

The court refused to give effect to the settlement, holding that Rule 49 is not an independent basis for an order under the Civil Remedies Act, and ordered the entire $29,900 forfeited to the Crown.