Sheila McKinlay

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action based on a release executed in a prior action.

The appellant argued the release did not cover the current claims or protect respondents who were not parties to it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the release was unambiguous and barred the action, as the appellant knew the essential elements of the claims when he signed it.

The Court also agreed that the release protected the non-party respondents because it applied to agents and the claims shared the same factual underpinnings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant submitted a $950,000 insurance claim following a theft at her residence, which included $50,000 for stolen artwork.

To substantiate the artwork's value, she provided the insurer with false invoices and maintained their validity under oath until compelled to disclose purchaser names.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing her claim due to fraud and misrepresentation.

On appeal, the appellant argued the misrepresentations were not material as they only sought to justify legitimate value.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant breached her duty of utmost good faith, rendering any evidence of her claimed loss untrustworthy.