J. Stephen Cavanagh

The appellant appealed an order finding that the cause of a fire was directly related to the use of a motor vehicle and therefore fell within the exclusion clause of the insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motions judge, rejecting the appellant's argument that there was an independent non-automobile related cause.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $85,000 in damages for lost profits resulting from a one-month delay in the installation of a new printing press due to a breach of contract.

The appellant argued the damage award lacked evidentiary foundation and that the trial judge erred in admitting the respondent's accountant's evidence without qualifying him as an expert.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the loss of profits and concluding that the trial judge's assessment was not mere guesswork.

The Court also held that while it would have been preferable to qualify the accountant as an expert, admitting his evidence was not a reversible error.

The appellants, a software developer and its CEO, appealed the dismissal of their application for a declaration that their insurer had a duty to defend them in an underlying action.

The underlying action alleged copyright infringement and misuse of confidential information in the development of competing software.

The appellants argued these claims fell under the 'advertising injury' coverage of their commercial general liability policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the policy required a direct causal link between the advertising activity and the alleged offence.

Because the underlying statement of claim did not allege that the copyright infringement or misappropriation occurred in the course of advertising, the duty to defend was not triggered.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that the defendant no longer had insurance with the respondent for a 1970 GMC truck at the time of a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant and his insurance broker had signed a form to delete the truck from the policy effective December 10, 1993.

The accident occurred on December 27, 1993.

The appellants argued the cancellation was not effective until processed by the insurer in January 1994.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's finding that the broker had authority to accept the cancellation on the insurer's behalf, making it effective on December 10, 1993.

The appeal was dismissed.