Jamieson Halfnight

The respondent obtained a default judgment against a former employee who defrauded it.

The respondent obtained an order authorizing the appointment of an equitable receiver to collect the employee's pension benefits upon retirement.

The employee died before retiring, and the respondent successfully moved to amend the order to collect the death benefits.

The designated beneficiaries appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 66(1) of the Pension Benefits Act exempts pension benefits from execution, and it is not just or convenient to appoint an equitable receiver to circumvent this statutory protection.

The designated beneficiaries had a contingent equitable right to the death benefits, which vested upon the employee's death.

The appellant's house was destroyed by a fire intentionally set by her husband, who was convicted of arson.

The respondent insurer denied the appellant's claim under her homeowner's policy based on an exclusion clause for loss resulting from the intentional or criminal acts of any person insured by the policy.

The appellant argued the clause was ambiguous and should not apply to an innocent co-insured.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the exclusion clause clear and unambiguous in excluding losses suffered by any insured person resulting from the intentional or criminal acts of an insured person.

The appellant, Lafarge Canada Inc., sought a Bullock order regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal declined to make the order, noting that the appellant should have known the inclusion of the successful insurers as respondents on the appeal was unnecessary, as evidenced by the appellant abandoning the appeal against most of them at the end of oral argument.

The Court requested further submissions on whether the successful insurers should receive partial or substantial indemnity costs and whether costs should be fixed or assessed.

The plaintiffs, homeowners, sued Bertrand and Lafarge for damages resulting from defective concrete foundations caused by fly ash supplied by Lafarge.

The trial judge found Lafarge 80% liable and Bertrand 20% liable for approximately $20,000,000 in damages.

This appeal concerns the insurance coverage disputes between Bertrand, Lafarge, and their numerous primary and excess insurers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the defective foundations constituted property damage under the CGL policies, that the continuous trigger theory applied to trigger all policies from 1986 to 1992, and that certain excess insurers had a duty to contribute to defence and third-party costs.

The appeal by Guardian Insurance was allowed regarding its duty to defend, but all other appeals and cross-appeals were dismissed.

The respondent investment dealer entered into a fidelity insurance contract with the appellant.

After discovering employee fraud, the respondent filed a proof of loss.

The appellant rescinded the bond, alleging misrepresentation in the application, and later brought a motion for summary judgment arguing the respondent failed to commence legal proceedings within the 24-month contractual limitation period.

The Supreme Court of Canada restored the motions judge's summary judgment in favour of the appellant, holding that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the discovery of the loss, and that the contractual limitation period survived the appellant's wrongful rescission of the contract.