Jennifer L. Kent

This appeal concerns whether Honda Canada Inc. is entitled to indemnity from Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Ltd. for class counsel fees and settlement administration costs arising from the settlement of class actions related to defective air bag actuator components.

The court upheld the arbitration award requiring Tokio to indemnify Honda for class counsel fees under the umbrella liability policy, but not for settlement administration costs, which were found to be excluded as recall or product withdrawal expenses.

The appellant insurer appealed a lower court's interpretation of a business interruption insurance policy's pandemic coverage limit.

The policy covered seven daycare locations, and the dispute centered on whether the $50,000 limit of liability for pandemic losses applied as a global total or per location.

The Court of Appeal, applying principles of insurance contract interpretation, found the clause unambiguous when read in the context of the policy as a whole, concluding that the limit applied on a per-location basis.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision in favour of the insured.

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion under Rules 30.10 and 31.10 for production of documents and examination for discovery from certain non-party corporations and individuals.

The information sought related to the deceased plaintiff's past and future dependency loss claims, which exceeded $5,000,000.

The court granted the request for production of specific financial and corporate documents from the non-party entities, finding it necessary to avoid trial unfairness given the plaintiffs' reliance on this information for their expert report.

However, the motion for leave to examine the non-party individuals was dismissed as premature, with leave to renew if the produced documents proved insufficient.

The applicants sought a declaration that they were entitled to further coverage under the pandemic-related business income interruption provision of their insurance policy.

The insurer argued the coverage was restricted to an aggregate maximum limit of $50,000 for the policy period, while the insured argued the limit applied to each of their seven daycare locations.

Applying the principles of contractual interpretation, the court found the policy ambiguous but concluded that reading the policy as a whole supported the insured's interpretation.

The court granted the application, declaring the limit of liability is $50,000 for each of the seven scheduled risk locations, for a maximum aggregate coverage of $350,000.

The appellant insurer appealed an order requiring it to defend the respondents in an action arising from an ATV accident.

The insurer denied coverage on the basis that the ATV was not required to be insured as it was being operated on private property and did not fall under the definition of "automobile" in the OAP 1.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the pleadings alleged facts permitting a finding that the respondents were not occupiers of the property at the time of the accident, which was sufficient to trigger the insurer's duty to defend under the policy.