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 applicant insurer sought a declaration that three other insurers had a duty to defend a construction company in an action for damages resulting from an allegedly defective mechanical system.

One insurer, AIG, denied a duty to defend based on faulty workmanship and loss of use exclusions.

The court found that the allegations in the statement of claim regarding consequential damage and loss of use were sufficiently broad to raise the possibility of coverage, triggering AIG's duty to defend.

The court further held that the defence costs should be allocated among the insurers on a 'time on risk' basis, rather than equally, and that a self-insured retention clause did not alter one insurer's obligation to contribute to defence costs at this stage.

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.

The applicants sought a declaration that their automobile insurer had a duty to defend them in a personal injury action arising from an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the ATV was an off-road vehicle driven on private property and not an automobile under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the underlying statement of claim contained alternative allegations that the applicants owned the ATV but were not occupiers of the property where the accident occurred.

If proven, these facts would mean the ATV was a newly acquired automobile covered by the policy.

The court granted the application, holding the insurer had a duty to defend.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a case management master's order that denied full documentary production prior to a motion to stay the action for arbitration.

The Divisional Court clarified the standard of review for orders of case management masters, holding that discretionary decisions and interlocutory matters of law not vital to the disposition of the lawsuit are subject to a standard of deference and should not be interfered with unless clearly wrong.

Finding that the master's decision on documentary production was not vital to the disposition of the lawsuit, the court dismissed the appeal.