Jennifer M. Lynch

The appellants, former directors and officers, sought a declaration that their insurer was obligated to pay 90 or 100 per cent of their defence costs for civil and regulatory proceedings arising from conduct in 2001 and 2003.

The insurer had been paying 50 per cent, arguing the policy only covered the 2001 conduct.

The application judge dismissed the application.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the policy's allocation provisions ambiguous when read with the definition of 'Loss'.

Because the factual record was insufficient to resolve the ambiguity or determine if the doctrine of contra proferentem applied, the Court allowed the appeal and directed a new hearing on the allocation issue.

The moving parties (defendants) sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an order denying them leave to appeal a class action certification order.

The moving parties argued that a recent Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision quashing a similar class action created conflicting decisions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that if the order denying leave was final, the appeal lay to the Court of Appeal as of right, and if interlocutory, to the Divisional Court with leave.

The court granted an extension of time to file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal, leaving the determination of whether the order was final or interlocutory to a panel of the court.

Following the dissolution of the law firm representing the plaintiff in a proposed class proceeding, the representative plaintiff chose to retain a new firm formed by some of the former partners.

The appellant, a firm formed by the former supervising partner, brought a motion to strike the notice of change of solicitors and replace the representative plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a representative plaintiff has the right to choose counsel, subject to court review based on competence, improper considerations, and prejudice to the class.

The court also stayed a competing class action commenced by the appellant as an abuse of process.

The appellant pharmaceutical company sued the respondents for defamation arising from radio and internet broadcasts, as well as statements made in the House of Commons.

The appellant failed to serve a notice of defamation prior to commencing the action, as required by s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the defamation claims, confirming that the notice requirement applies to non-media defendants and that failure to provide notice is an absolute bar to the action.

The Court also upheld the striking of claims based on statements made in Parliament due to absolute parliamentary privilege.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) sought judicial review of an order by the Assistant Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring it to disclose an electronic database containing the personal information of over 10 million Ontario residents to a collection agency.

The Commissioner had found that disclosure was expressly authorized by the Assessment Act, relying on previous case law regarding municipal election records.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commissioner's decision, finding that the Assessment Act did not expressly authorize disclosure of the electronic records and that the Commissioner failed to properly consider the differing statutory contexts and privacy interests.

The Court also held that MPAC was entitled to refuse disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the information was already available to the public in paper form.