The appellant, a bus driver, was sued for sexual battery, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from alleged nonconsensual sexual activity.
He sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurance provider had a duty to defend him.
The Supreme Court of Canada, relying on its concurrent decision in Scalera, held that the insurer had no duty to defend.
The Court found that the inherently harmful nature of nonconsensual sexual activity meant any resulting injuries must be deemed intentional, thus falling under the policy's intentional act exclusion.
The Court also rejected the argument that an explicit exclusion for sexual torts in an optional day care endorsement implied coverage under the general policy.
