Sean Lewis

The respondents, facing multiple class actions related to the manufacture and distribution of opioids over a 20-year period, sought coverage for defence costs from their successive primary and excess liability insurers.

The application judge allowed the respondents to select a single primary insurer to fund the entire defence, permitted the exhaustion of self-insured retentions (SIRs) using payments from other insurers, granted relief from forfeiture for pre-tender defence costs, and required insurers to sign a Defence Reporting Agreement (DRA) to receive privileged defence information.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurers' appeals in part, holding that defence costs must be allocated on a pro rata time-on-risk basis, that the insureds must exhaust each applicable SIR before an insurer's duty to defend is triggered, and that relief from forfeiture was unavailable for pre-tender costs.

The Court upheld the DRA requirement for insurers seeking to associate in the defence to mitigate reasonable apprehensions of conflict of interest.

The plaintiff sued her gynecologist for medical malpractice after suffering a ureteric injury during a laparoscopic hysterectomy.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to detect the injury during surgery and in failing to consider the possibility of a ureteric injury and consult a urologist when the plaintiff presented with post-operative complications.

The court found no breach of the standard of care during the surgery, as the injury was likely a thermal ischemic injury that was not visually observable.

While the court found the defendant breached the standard of care by failing to consider a ureteric injury and consult a urologist post-operatively, the action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove causation.

The court concluded that earlier urological intervention would not have altered the plaintiff's medical outcome or prevented the need for subsequent repair surgery.

The applicant challenged the validity of her late mother's 2019 will, which left the estate to a defunct charity and appointed a neighbour's daughter as estate trustee.

The application was uncontested.

The court found the will invalid due to suspicious circumstances, including the deceased's documented brain injury and lack of capacity since 2012.

The court declared an intestacy, appointed the applicant as estate trustee, and allowed the estate to be processed as a small estate despite being marginally over the financial threshold.

A case conference was held after a scheduled 10-day trial was adjourned due to a lack of judicial resources.

The defendant hospital sought leave to bring motions for partial summary judgment and security for costs.

The court denied leave for the summary judgment motion, noting it should have been brought before the action was set down for trial, and directed that any motion for security for costs proceed through regular channels rather than on an urgent basis.

The court also ordered further discovery on the plaintiff's loss of income claim and directed counsel to select a trial date in 2022, emphasizing the unacceptability of further delaying a 10-year-old case.

The applicant brought an application to enforce his rights under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding a cannabis licence in Zimbabwe.

The respondents moved to stay the proceedings, arguing the MOA mandated arbitration at the London Court of International Arbitration.

The applicant argued the MOA also contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause for Canadian courts, creating a conflict that allowed him to choose the forum.

The court found that it was arguable the dispute fell within the mandatory arbitration provision and, applying the competence-competence principle, stayed the application to allow the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.