Michael B. Stocks

The plaintiff mortgagors failed to maintain property insurance as required by their mortgage.

The defendant mortgagees obtained their own insurance policy to protect their interest, with the plaintiffs reimbursing the premiums.

After a fire destroyed the property, the insurer paid the mortgagees the policy limits and claimed a subrogated right to enforce the mortgage against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the insurer had no subrogated rights and an order discharging the mortgage to the extent of the insurance payout.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the insurance policy was obtained solely for the benefit of the mortgagees and explicitly provided for subrogation rights against the mortgagors.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking removal of defence counsel on the basis that counsel’s spouse had previously conducted a counselling session with the plaintiff.

After learning of the litigation, the spouse transferred the file and destroyed correspondence from the plaintiff.

The court held there was no solicitor‑client relationship between the plaintiff and defence counsel and no evidence that confidential information had been improperly disclosed.

The evidence demonstrated that the spouse acted professionally and there was no breach of professional conduct rules.

Given the strong right of parties to retain counsel of their choice, the motion to remove counsel was dismissed.