The respondent was accidentally shot and injured by a youth who subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm.
The respondent obtained a civil judgment against the youth and then sought to recover from the homeowner insurance policies of the youth's mother and his aunt and uncle.
The motion judge found the youth was covered under the aunt and uncle's policy and that the 'criminal act' exclusion did not apply because there was no intent to injure.
The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the 'criminal act' exclusion is unambiguous and applies to any breach of the Criminal Code, regardless of whether the insured intended to cause injury.
