James H. Cooke

The appellants, insured under a standard automobile policy, were named as third parties in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving their daughter.

The third-party claim alleged negligence for failing to instruct the daughter on seat belt use.

The appellants conceded the claim fell outside the policy's indemnity coverage but argued the policy language created a separate duty to defend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the duty to defend does not arise for a claim that cannot come within the indemnity provisions of the policy.

The applicant sought to enforce a Review Officer's pay equity order against Hull-Thomson Limited and Hull-Thomson Inc. At the hearing, Hull-Thomson Inc. brought a motion to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and that it was a separate legal entity from Hull-Thomson Limited.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to dismiss and denied costs, with reasons to follow.