Alexander Reyes

The appellants challenged an order refusing leave to amend their amended statement of defence in an insurance indemnity proceeding under s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act.

They sought to characterize alleged lies by the insureds about the mechanism of injury as civil fraud.

The court held that, regardless of whether civil fraud was legally available in such a proceeding, the existing pleading already allowed the appellants to advance the factual allegations necessary to defend the indemnity claim and oppose relief from forfeiture.

The proposed amendment was therefore irrelevant in the circumstances, and the motion judge made no reversible error in finding non-compensable prejudice on the eve of trial.

The appeal was dismissed with agreed costs to the respondent.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff law firm's claim for business interruption coverage.

The law firm was forced to close indefinitely after organized criminals in the tow truck industry targeted its office with arson and gunfire, causing its insurance clients to withdraw all their files out of fear of further attacks.

The insurer argued that the policy only covered business interruption during the time required to physically repair the building.

The court dismissed the insurer's motion and granted a declaration of coverage in favour of the law firm, finding that the extended closure was 'as a result of' the direct physical loss or damage from the insured peril of criminal acts.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to dismiss his action for delay and refuse to restore it to the trial list.

The action, arising from a 2014 motor vehicle accident, was struck from the trial list in 2019 due to a lack of an expert report.

Over a year later, the respondents moved to dismiss for delay.

The appellant provided an expert report and moved to restore the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision, finding that the appellant failed to explain the inordinate delay or demonstrate that the respondents would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

The applicant sought production of documents from the insurer regarding a claim for a special award following the payment of death benefits.

The insurer agreed to produce documents subject to redaction for privilege.

The applicant requested an affidavit of documents attesting to the claims for privilege.

The arbitrator dismissed the request, finding that the simplified FSCO arbitration procedure does not require an affidavit of documents.

Instead, the insurer was ordered to provide a written description of any withheld documents and the basis for the claim of privilege.

The applicant's legal representative brought a motion to withdraw from the arbitration proceeding due to an inability to locate or contact the applicant.

The insurer brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application for arbitration without a hearing, arguing the applicant had abandoned the proceeding by failing to attend multiple scheduled medical assessments and examinations under oath.

The arbitrator granted the representative's motion to withdraw and dismissed the application for arbitration, finding the applicant had abandoned the proceeding.

The insurer was awarded $2,500 in expenses.