COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
AT PLASTICS INC. (Plaintiff/Respondent) – and – ACE INA INSURANCE formerly known as Cigna Insurance Company of Canada (Defendant/Appellant)
BEFORE:
GILLES, BLAIR and JURIANSZ JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Robert J. Clayton
for the appellant
Lawrence G. Theall and Jeffrey J. Brown
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
January 27, 2006
On appeal from the judgment of Justice H. J. Wilton‑Siegel of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 30, 2004.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in concluding that:
(1) the respondent insured’s 5R production facility was a separate location; and
(2) only one accident occurred.
(1) Separate Location
2We see no error in the trial judge’s finding that, on a plain reading of Endorsement No. 8, the parties added the facility as a separate location under the policy and that the appellant is bound by that wording.
(2) One Accident or Two
3Both sides agree that there was an “Accident” within the meaning of the policy. In our view, the respondent is correct when he argues that the accidental breakdown continued until the “Object”, which was the compressor, was repaired. Repair did not occur until the second attempt had been completed successfully. Therefore, there was only one accident.
4As we agree with the Judgment under appeal, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed at $20,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.