M. Van Dusen

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding it had a duty to defend the respondents against a claim of negligent misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the negligent misrepresentation claim was separate and distinct from the breach of contract claim, and therefore not derivative under the Scalera framework.

The court also found that the exclusion clauses in the policy did not relieve the insurer of its duty to defend.

The applicant union requested a new representation vote after losing the initial vote, arguing that the ballot was defective because its name appeared only in English, despite the ballot otherwise being bilingual.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had reviewed the sample ballot prior to the vote, chose not to object to avoid delaying the vote, and signed a waiver of objection after the vote.

The Board applied its established policy that a party cannot 'lie in the bushes' and challenge a vote's regularity only after learning it lost.

The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) applied to intervene in an appeal concerning the legal remedies available to a woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with a doctor in exchange for drugs to which she was addicted.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that LEAF would add nothing new and that the Charter should not be raised for the first time at the Supreme Court.

Sopinka J. granted the application, finding that LEAF could present a different perspective and that the appropriateness of raising the Charter should be decided on the appeal itself.