Marcus Blair Snowden

Panasonic Canada Inc. brought an application for a declaration that its insurance claim with XL Specialty Insurance Company was subject to a $1.5 million USD retention and sought coverage for replacement laptops purchased as reasonable mitigation following a cyber-attack.

XL contended that a $3 million USD retention applied because the claim involved a "ransomware event" under Endorsement 23 of the policy.

The court found that Panasonic's claim attracted the lower $1.5 million USD retention, that the laptop purchases were reasonable and necessary mitigation expenses, and that the property damage exclusion did not apply.

The court granted Panasonic's application, save for six laptops that were not shown to be necessary.

This decision concerns the interpretation of an insurance policy following a flood at the City of Thunder Bay’s wastewater pollution control plant.

The central issue was whether increased repair costs required by building code upgrades were subject to a $10 million sub-limit.

The court found that the policy was unambiguous and that the sub-limit applied to all code compliance costs, rejecting the City’s argument that broader coverage was available.

The court also addressed costs, awarding the insurers $25,000.

This appeal concerns whether Honda Canada Inc. is entitled to indemnity from Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Ltd. for class counsel fees and settlement administration costs arising from the settlement of class actions related to defective air bag actuator components.

The court upheld the arbitration award requiring Tokio to indemnify Honda for class counsel fees under the umbrella liability policy, but not for settlement administration costs, which were found to be excluded as recall or product withdrawal expenses.

The Insurers brought a motion for a declaration that the "Prior Acts Exclusion" in their Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance policies barred coverage for a claim asserted against Just Energy's D&Os.

The claim, filed by a representative plaintiff in a class action, sought unpaid wages and benefits from a period prior to Just Energy's Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) filing.

The court found the Prior Acts Exclusion to be clear and unambiguous.

It determined that the exclusion applied to acts or omissions committed by anyone prior to the CCAA filing date, and that this interpretation was consistent with the commercial context of the policies, which were intended to cover post-filing D&O liability during insolvency.

The court concluded that applying the exclusion did not nullify the policy's main purpose or contradict the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The Insurers' motion was granted, and the representative plaintiff's request for relief against the Insurers was denied.

This endorsement concerns a request to reconsider a costs disposition made on July 27, 2021.

The moving party for the reconsideration (respondents in the underlying appeal) had their costs submissions filed late and not forwarded to the panel.

The court reviewed the submissions but found no reason to vary the original costs order, confirming the previous disposition.

AIG Insurance Company of Canada sought substantial indemnity costs against The Corporation of the City of Markham and Lloyd’s Underwriters following a motion for reconsideration of an appeal decision.

The court found the reconsideration motion to be entirely without merit, having put AIG to needless expense.

Consequently, the court awarded AIG $13,000 in substantial indemnity costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable forthwith.

The respondents (moving parties on the motion) sought reconsideration of a Court of Appeal decision rendered 15 months prior.

The motion was dismissed as lacking merit, with the court emphasizing the principle of finality.

Reconsideration is rarely granted, especially when the moving party has already unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the same arguments, which was dismissed.

This appeal concerns a dispute between two insurers, AIG Insurance Company of Canada and Lloyd's Underwriters, regarding their respective duties to defend the City of Markham in a personal injury action.

The application judge had found AIG solely responsible for the defence and denied AIG the right to participate in the defence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that both AIG and Lloyd's had a concurrent duty to defend the City, and must share defence costs equally, subject to reallocation at the conclusion of the action.

Furthermore, the Court found that AIG has a right to participate in the defence, including retaining and instructing counsel, provided a "split file" protocol with additional safeguards is implemented to manage potential conflicts of interest.

Sky Solar, a solar energy project developer, sued its contractor's insurer (Economical) and insurance broker (FCA) after two fires involving transformers at its solar projects.

Sky Solar was an additional insured under the contractor's commercial general liability (CGL) policy.

After the second fire, Sky Solar settled with the project buyer (Firelight) for remediation costs and lost income, then sought indemnity from Economical.

Economical denied coverage, arguing Sky Solar's liability did not arise from the contractor's operations and that Sky Solar breached a policy condition by settling without consent.

Sky Solar also claimed negligence and bad faith against FCA for issuing certificates of insurance.

The court dismissed Sky Solar's action against both Economical and FCA, finding no coverage under the policy and no breach of duty by the broker.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ), as an additional insured under an AIG policy, applied for an order entitling it to appoint independent counsel at AIG's expense for two underlying actions and for reimbursement of pre-tender legal and administrative expenses.

AIG acknowledged its duty to defend but asserted its right to select counsel and denied pre-tender costs.

The court dismissed HMQ's application, finding that AIG's "split file" protocol adequately addressed any "party-based" conflict of interest and that HMQ failed to establish a "coverage-based" conflict.

The court also held that pre-tender defence costs were not recoverable due to voluntary payment wording in the policy.

The plaintiff, Sky Solar (Canada) Ltd., brought a motion for costs on a substantial indemnity basis after the defendant broker, Firstbrook, Cassie & Anderson Limited (FCA), abandoned its motion for summary judgment.

The court found that Sky Solar was prima facie entitled to costs under Rule 37.09(3) and that FCA failed to displace this entitlement.

Furthermore, the court determined that FCA acted unreasonably in bringing the summary judgment motion, particularly by ignoring judicial caution regarding expert evidence and proceeding without sufficient evidence, thus warranting substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06.