Anne Juntunen

The plaintiffs sought costs of a motion on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued that no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court noted that relief was consented to, some relief was withdrawn, and success was divided on the contested relief.

The court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs and ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The plaintiff landlord sued its insurer after the insurer denied a claim under an employee dishonesty policy.

The plaintiff alleged its property manager stole rent money and misused a corporate credit card.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the property manager was an independent contractor, not an employee.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the property manager was an employee based on the level of control and the nature of the relationship.

The court awarded the plaintiff $58,761 for the stolen rent but dismissed the credit card claim, finding it was a debtor-creditor arrangement.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for bad faith and punitive damages, finding the insurer handled the complex claim fairly.

The plaintiffs, a grapevine grower and a nursery, sought a declaration that their insurer owed them a duty to defend an underlying action in British Columbia regarding allegedly defective vines.

The insurer denied coverage based on the 'Your Product', 'care, custody or control', and 'fungus' exclusions in the Commercial General Liability policy.

The court held that the pleadings in the underlying action clearly triggered the exclusions, relieving the insurer of any duty to defend.

The court also addressed the plaintiffs' request to appoint independent counsel, noting that while no duty to defend existed, specific protective measures would have been ordered to prevent conflicts of interest had the duty been found.

The applicant insurer sought appointment of an arbitrator under a trade credit insurance policy after the insured failed to account for recoveries obtained from a delinquent foreign customer.

The respondent argued the dispute arose solely under a later release and assignment agreement that omitted an arbitration clause, and further submitted that delay and the two-year limitation period barred arbitration.

The court held the release did not extinguish the policies, but instead operated in conjunction with them, so the dispute remained one arising under the policies and within the mandatory arbitration clauses.

Applying discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002, the court found no undue delay and held the arbitration was commenced in time.

The respondent was ordered to appoint an arbitrator by a fixed date, failing which the court appointed one.