Karen F. W. Liang

The appellant, a childcare worker, was sued in negligence after a child suffered a brain injury in her care.

During the civil proceedings, the police investigated the appellant criminally.

The appellant sought to prevent the disclosure of her civil discovery evidence to the police, relying on the implied undertaking rule.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the implied undertaking rule applies to discovery evidence that may disclose criminal conduct, and that parties cannot generally disclose such evidence to the police without a court order.

The Court allowed the appeal, preventing the disclosure of the discovery transcripts to the police without a proper search warrant.

The appellant, a bus driver, was sued for sexual battery, negligent battery, and breach of fiduciary duty by a young woman.

He sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurance provider had a duty to defend him in the civil action.

The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury caused by any intentional or criminal act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insurer had no duty to defend because the plaintiff's claims, properly construed, were based on intentional torts that fell within the policy's exclusion clause.

The Court also discussed the elements of the tort of sexual battery, with the majority holding that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving lack of consent, while the minority maintained that consent is an affirmative defence to be proven by the defendant.