Mark M. O’Donnell

In a motor vehicle accident case, the appellant's insurer appointed defence counsel under a non-waiver agreement.

Following a trial on liability, the insurer sought to intervene in the appeal to challenge a finding regarding insurance coverage, while a co-defendant moved to remove the appellant's counsel for conflict of interest.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to remove counsel, finding an inescapable conflict between the interests of the appellant and the insurer who instructed counsel to appeal the coverage finding.

The motion to intervene was dismissed because the insurer failed to show it would be adversely affected by the judgment and bore responsibility for the confusion at trial.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario.

A previous order had imposed a penalty, suspended it on conditions, and specified that the penalty would take effect immediately if the conditions were breached.

When the appellant breached the conditions, the Committee imposed a harsher 15-month suspension instead of the prescribed penalty.

The Divisional Court found this unreasonable, as the breach was specifically contemplated by the previous order.

The appeal was allowed, and the original penalty was ordered to be enforced.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff’s claim and related cross-claims were dismissed, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the reasonableness of the successful defendant’s bill of costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court scrutinized preparation time, trial attendance, and written submissions, reducing several claimed amounts and rejecting certain disbursements including unexplained agency fees, meal expenses, legal research charges lacking detail, and stationery costs treated as overhead.

The court fixed reduced amounts for several litigation stages and limited disbursements.

Counsel were directed to calculate the final payable costs based on the court’s determinations.

The plaintiffs appealed an order determining that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was forum non conveniens for their claims of breach of contract and misrepresentation against their insurance brokers and insurers.

The claims arose from a lapsed umbrella liability policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the central core of the lawsuit concerned contracts and representations made in Quebec, and that the plaintiffs' presence in Ontario was insignificant.

Following the dismissal of the appellant insurer's appeal regarding its duty to defend the respondent insured, the Court of Appeal determined the scale and quantum of costs.

The court declined to award costs on a substantial indemnity basis, noting that the significant issue of insurance coverage remained to be determined at trial.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $11,500 for the respondent insured and $10,000 for the respondent co-insurer, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale to the respondents and cross-appellants, Father Reed and the Diocese, in the amount of $18,000.

The Phoenix group of insurers and the Ecclesiastical Insurance Office were each awarded costs of $5,549.02.

The appellant insurer appealed an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party claim for indemnification and a declaration of a duty to defend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the insurance coverage issues were not ripe for determination because the 'Completed Operations Hazard' clause was ambiguous and extrinsic evidence might be required.

The Court also upheld the declaration that the insurer had a duty to defend, as the claim was not clearly excluded from coverage.