Jeffrey A. Brown

Panasonic Canada Inc. brought an application for a declaration that its insurance claim with XL Specialty Insurance Company was subject to a $1.5 million USD retention and sought coverage for replacement laptops purchased as reasonable mitigation following a cyber-attack.

XL contended that a $3 million USD retention applied because the claim involved a "ransomware event" under Endorsement 23 of the policy.

The court found that Panasonic's claim attracted the lower $1.5 million USD retention, that the laptop purchases were reasonable and necessary mitigation expenses, and that the property damage exclusion did not apply.

The court granted Panasonic's application, save for six laptops that were not shown to be necessary.

The appellant sought to certify a class action against the municipality for property damage caused by pinhole leaks in copper plumbing, allegedly resulting from the addition of sodium hydroxide to the municipal water supply.

The motion judge certified the negligence claim but struck the nuisance claim, finding it barred by s. 449 of the Municipal Act, 2001, which precludes nuisance claims related to the escape of water from water works.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the nuisance claim was plainly and obviously barred by the ordinary meaning of the statute.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's argument that a breach of contract claim should have been certified, as it was not argued before the motion judge.

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 defendants Mercedes-Benz and Mitsubishi brought a motion to dismiss the proposed class action for delay pursuant to s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiffs argued that the court had discretion not to dismiss the action and that all defendants must join the motion.

The court held that s. 29.1 is mandatory and does not require all defendants to join.

The action was dismissed against the moving defendants, but the court exercised its jurisdiction under s. 12 to order that the dismissal be set aside if the plaintiffs file a complete certification motion record within thirty days.

This grouped appeal concerned four applications seeking declarations that the appellant insurers had a duty to defend the respondent corporations against claims of property damage arising from condominium construction deficiencies.

The application judge found a duty to defend based on the "mere possibility" test and refused ex ante allocation of defence costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeal, affirming the application judge's findings that the "mere possibility" test applies to exclusions and that courts should not conduct a "trial within a trial" on duty to defend applications.

The court also upheld the order for pre-notification defence costs and dismissed a cross-appeal regarding the assessment of past defence costs.

The Applicants sought costs following a partial success in an application concerning insurance coverage, specifically the duty to defend and equitable allocation among insurers.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the Applicants against AIG and Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (RSA) for the duty to defend issue, finding the Applicants overwhelmingly successful on that point.

Costs related to the exhaustion of self-insured retentions (SIRs)/deductibles were deferred to a future trial of the issue, as neither party fully succeeded.

Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. was ordered to pay reduced costs due to its partial success on a specific "Single Retention Endorsement" interpretation.

This appeal concerned an insurer's duty to defend its insured, Panasonic Eco Solutions Canada Inc., against two breach of contract claims in an arbitration.

The professional errors and omissions policy excluded contractual liability unless the liability would exist in the absence of the contract.

The application judge found a duty to defend one claim (Engineering Agreement) but not the other (Proceeds Agreement).

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal and dismissed the insured's cross-appeal, finding no duty to defend either claim.

The court held that the liquidated damages claim under the Engineering Agreement was purely contractual and the sole remedy, thus falling within the exclusion.

The claim under the Proceeds Agreement was for a contractual debt, and related negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment claims were also not covered by the policy.

The plaintiff municipality sought a declaration that its insurers had a duty to defend it in relation to a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change regarding environmental contamination.

The defendant insurers brought a Rule 21 motion to determine whether the Director's Order constituted a 'civil action' under their respective liability policies.

The court held that a regulatory proceeding, including an appeal of a Director's Order to the Environmental Review Tribunal, is not a 'civil action' as defined by the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Courts of Justice Act.

Consequently, the insurers had no duty to defend the municipality.

The applicants, Distillery Parties and Rite-Air, sought declarations that their insurers, Temple Insurance Company and Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, had a duty to defend them under a Specific Project Wrap-Up Liability Insurance Policy.

The insurers denied the duty to defend, arguing that the alleged property damage was below the policy's $10,000 deductible, and thus no coverage was triggered.

The court held that the duty to defend is triggered by the mere possibility of a covered claim, regardless of whether the alleged damages exceed the deductible.

The court also rejected the insurers' request for an ex ante allocation of defence costs, stating that such allocation is premature and must be determined ex post facto based on actual legal expenses for exclusively uncovered claims.

Panasonic Eco Solutions Canada Inc. sought a declaration that its insurer, XL Specialty Insurance Company, owed it a duty to defend an underlying arbitration claim.

The arbitration involved claims for liquidated damages arising from an Engineering Agreement and damages from a Proceeds Agreement.

The insurance policy was an errors and omissions policy with a contractual liability exclusion.

The court granted the application for a duty to defend in respect of the liquidated damages claim, finding that the facts alleged could support a claim for negligence despite being pleaded as breach of contract.

However, the court dismissed the application for the Proceeds Agreement claim, determining it was purely contractual, a debt claim, or involved negligent misrepresentation of intent to pay, which fell within the contractual exclusion or the policy's exclusion for equitable relief.

XL was granted the right to control the defence of the liquidated damages claim.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party due to divided success.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that Gabriel Kit Chun Fung knew or was willfully blind to the fact that he was purchasing stolen goods or goods fraudulently obtained by Nadia Minetto, the accounting manager of Wescom Solutions Inc. Between early 2012 and July 2014, Fung purchased approximately $6.2 million in iPhones and iPads from Minetto, who had fraudulently obtained them using Wescom's corporate credit card.

The trial judge divided the transactions into three stages and found Fung was not willfully blind in Stage 1, was willfully blind in Stage 2, and had actual knowledge in Stage 3.

The trial judge awarded damages of $5,094,767.72 plus interest.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by applying an objective standard to the wilful blindness analysis and by making adverse credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the trial judge's mischaracterization of the wilful blindness standard, the factual findings supported a subjective finding of wilful blindness.

The Moving Parties (Fuego Digital Media Inc., ProtocollS Inc., Fuego Digital Media QSTP-LLC, Karl Gretton, and Kevin Higgins) brought a motion to dismiss the action against them, arguing it was statute-barred, res judicata, or an abuse of process.

The Plaintiff (DAC Group (Holdings) Limited) brought a cross-motion to amend its claim to add Patricia Ruth Higgins as a party for a fraudulent conveyance claim and to seek a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The court dismissed the Moving Parties' motion, finding that the claims were not plainly and obviously statute-barred, issue estoppel did not apply to the non-arbitration parties, and abuse of process was not clear at this stage.

The court granted DAC's cross-motion to add Patricia Ruth Higgins and permit a CPL, as Higgins and his wife consented.

Nadia Minetto, an accounting manager, defrauded her employer, Wescom Solutions Inc. (WSI), by using its corporate credit card to purchase Apple products and reselling them.

Gabriel Fung, through his businesses GF International and Plus One Solutions, purchased over 10,000 Apple products from Minetto for $5.2 million in cash.

WSI obtained a consent judgment against Minetto and brought an action against Fung and his entities, alleging knowing receipt or wilful blindness to the fraudulent nature of the goods.

The court found that Fung was wilfully blind to the fact that the Apple products were stolen or fraudulently obtained from March 30, 2012, onwards.

Judgment was granted against Fung and his businesses for $5,094,674.72, plus interest, with a corresponding crossclaim for contribution and indemnity against Minetto.

The plaintiff, IPEX Inc., settled numerous class actions related to its defective Kitec Pipe.

IPEX then sued its resin suppliers, AT Plastics Inc. and Lubrizol Advanced Materials Inc., for breach of contract and indemnity, seeking to recover the settlement amount.

The defendant suppliers brought motions for partial summary judgment, arguing that IPEX could not prove causation without individual claims data.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions, finding that IPEX could plausibly establish causation for its breach of contract claim without individual data, and that the tort claim should proceed to trial alongside the contract claim to avoid bifurcation and inconsistent findings.

The court also found that the reasonableness of the settlement and the assignment argument were not suitable for summary judgment.