Jamie Macdonald

The applicant, a former chartered professional accountant, sought a declaration that two negligence actions brought against him by separate clients constituted separate claims under two professional liability insurance policies, thereby providing access to $3,000,000 in combined coverage rather than $1,000,000 under a single policy.

The insurer argued the application was premature because determining whether the two actions arose from a "common set of circumstances" required factual findings that could prejudice the applicant's defence in the underlying actions.

The court agreed the application was premature, finding it inappropriate to determine whether the claims shared common circumstances based on an incomplete factual record where the underlying actions had not yet proceeded to discovery or trial.

The respondents, facing multiple class actions related to the manufacture and distribution of opioids over a 20-year period, sought coverage for defence costs from their successive primary and excess liability insurers.

The application judge allowed the respondents to select a single primary insurer to fund the entire defence, permitted the exhaustion of self-insured retentions (SIRs) using payments from other insurers, granted relief from forfeiture for pre-tender defence costs, and required insurers to sign a Defence Reporting Agreement (DRA) to receive privileged defence information.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurers' appeals in part, holding that defence costs must be allocated on a pro rata time-on-risk basis, that the insureds must exhaust each applicable SIR before an insurer's duty to defend is triggered, and that relief from forfeiture was unavailable for pre-tender costs.

The Court upheld the DRA requirement for insurers seeking to associate in the defence to mitigate reasonable apprehensions of conflict of interest.

The applicants sought coverage under a trade credit insurance policy issued by Export Development Canada (EDC).

EDC denied coverage due to underlying disputes regarding the receivables owed by the UD Group to Rutmet.

Rutmet and the UD Group brought motions to intervene in the application and consolidate it with their own actions.

The applicants brought a cross-motion to declare Rutmet and the UD Group vexatious litigants.

The court, on its own initiative, stayed the application pending the determination of the substantive disputes in ongoing foreign proceedings in Singapore and Dubai, finding that those jurisdictions had already been determined to be the appropriate forums.

Consequently, the motions to intervene and consolidate, as well as the cross-motion, were dismissed.

Export Development Canada (EDC) brought a motion to temporarily stay the respondent's application pending the resolution of a related action.

The respondent, a trade financing lender, sought a declaration regarding coverage under an export credit insurance policy issued by EDC.

EDC argued that the validity of a power of attorney, which was being challenged in the related action, needed to be determined first.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that EDC had delayed in taking its position, the related action was proceeding slowly, and a stay would cause significant prejudice to the respondent.

The defendant university brought a motion to set aside a noting of default in an action commenced by a self-represented plaintiff regarding the handling of complaints under a sexual violence policy.

The plaintiff noted the defendant in default without notice, shortly after the defendant had served a notice of motion to dismiss the claim.

The court granted the motion to set aside the noting of default, finding that the defendant clearly intended to defend the action, moved promptly to set aside the default, and the plaintiff would suffer no prejudice.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants—one through a successful motion to strike as an abuse of process and the other through summary judgment—the court considered the issue of costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, alternatively partial indemnity costs.

The court reviewed the governing principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the purposes of indemnification, encouraging settlement, and discouraging inappropriate litigation conduct.

The court noted the plaintiff’s unsupported and serious allegations, the abuse of process against one defendant, and the plaintiff’s failure to accept a favourable Rule 49 offer.

Costs were awarded to the defendants in the amount of $20,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing claims against a corporate parent and for dismissal of claims against a university as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff alleged employment-related torts against the parent corporation and academic-related torts against the university following a failing grade and unsuccessful internal appeals.

The court found the corporate defendant had no employment or legal relationship with the plaintiff and declined to pierce the corporate veil.

The claims against the university were held to be an improper collateral attack on internal academic decisions that should have been pursued through judicial review.

Summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.