Guy Sanders

The applicant, a surveillance services provider, sought an order compelling its insurers to provide a defence to an underlying action alleging criminal harassment, conspiracy, and negligence related to surveillance, and an automobile incident.

The applicant also sought reimbursement of defence expenses and the right to choose its own counsel.

The court found that the negligence claims related to surveillance were not derivative of intentional torts and triggered the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy's duty to defend.

The court also found that the non-owned automobile (NOA) policy triggered a duty to defend for the auto claims, as the policy's language was broad and not limited to rental cars.

However, the court denied the applicant's request to choose its own counsel, affirming the insurers' contractual right to control the defence in the absence of a conflict of interest.

Following an unsuccessful personal injury action where a jury found no negligence on the defendant's part but assessed damages over $300,000, the court rendered a decision on costs.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs totaling over $485,000.

The plaintiffs argued for no costs, citing the exceptional "inevitable accident" finding and access to justice principles.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs from the date of their offer to settle, but significantly reduced the quantum to $184,000, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The court declined to award costs against the Family Law Act claimants and limited the award to Katherine Pyatt, emphasizing reasonableness, access to justice, and the specific circumstances of the case.

The plaintiff, involved in two motor vehicle accidents, accepted Rule 49 offers from two sets of defendants.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate award of partial indemnity costs and disbursements, and their apportionment between the defendants.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $37,500 plus HST and disbursements at $45,000 inclusive of HST, and ordered the defendants to pay these costs equally, rather than proportionally to their settlement offers.