Mark Frederick

The plaintiff brought a motion to add three additional representative plaintiffs during a certification hearing for a class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims.

The court found that the original plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., had an arguable cause of action and was a suitable representative plaintiff.

The court also found that the three proposed additional plaintiffs—Hangar9 Studios Inc., Cash and Carry Inc., and Real Food for Real Kids Inc.—had viable causes of action and met the requirements under s. 5(1)(e) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The class action was fully certified with all four as representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions against Aviva Insurance for the blanket denial of coverage for COVID-19-related business loss claims.

The claims focused on 'restricted access' and 'negative publicity' coverage provisions in Aviva's standard-form policies.

The court found that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting the commonality of the standard-form policies and the identical denial letters.

The two Lerners Actions were certified, and the Nordik Action was conditionally certified pending a motion regarding the representative plaintiff.

The applicant sought a declaration that its proposed expansion of insurance business would not contravene s. 2(5) of the Architects Act.

The declaration was intended to address a concern raised by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario regarding the applicant’s plan to expand its insurance offerings beyond architects.

The court held that although it had jurisdiction to interpret the statutory provision, the issue arose within a comprehensive regulatory scheme under the Insurance Act assigning decision‑making authority to the Superintendent of Financial Services.

Applying principles of administrative law and deference to specialized tribunals, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.

The matter should first be determined through the statutory licensing process before the regulator, subject to subsequent review or appeal.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that a proposed expansion of its insurance business was not inconsistent with s. 2(5) of the Architects Act.

During the hearing, the court raised concerns regarding whether it had jurisdiction to determine the issue in the absence of an adverse regulatory decision from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The court noted the need to avoid undermining the statutory administrative regime by creating an alternate forum for determining issues within the regulator’s mandate.

Because the record and submissions were insufficient to resolve the jurisdictional question, the court adjourned the application and directed further materials and supplementary factums addressing jurisdiction.