David Chung

The applicant, West York Sales and Leasing Inc., sought a declaration that it was entitled to a defence under an automobile liability insurance policy issued by the respondent, The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (Travelers Canada).

The dispute centered on whether a specific vehicle was covered by the policy at the time of an accident, given the operation of a monthly reporting fleet endorsement.

The court found that the vehicle was covered, that late reporting did not invalidate coverage, and that any breach of statutory conditions was subject to relief from forfeiture.

The application was granted.

The appellant appealed two orders finding a joint venture agreement for a convenience store on First Nation land enforceable and granting the respondent permanent possession of the business.

The appellant argued the agreement was void under s. 28 of the Indian Act, violated the First Nation's Land Code, and contained a forged redaction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the agreement did not directly grant land possession, the possession order was subject to First Nation approval, and the application judge reasonably relied on expert handwriting evidence to find the document authentic.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal because the moving party failed to file the necessary material.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $1,812.50.

This grouped appeal concerned four applications seeking declarations that the appellant insurers had a duty to defend the respondent corporations against claims of property damage arising from condominium construction deficiencies.

The application judge found a duty to defend based on the "mere possibility" test and refused ex ante allocation of defence costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeal, affirming the application judge's findings that the "mere possibility" test applies to exclusions and that courts should not conduct a "trial within a trial" on duty to defend applications.

The court also upheld the order for pre-notification defence costs and dismissed a cross-appeal regarding the assessment of past defence costs.