Stephen R. Morrison

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's careful and thorough reasons on either of the points argued.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact could not be successfully challenged and precluded the application of the legal principles relied upon by the appellant.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant insurer appealed a declaration that the respondent insureds were entitled to full coverage of over $20 million for a property loss.

At the time of the loss, the insureds had entered into a conditional Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the property but had not yet obtained court approval.

The Court of Appeal found that the insureds had bargained away their beneficial ownership interest under the agreement and were therefore not entitled to full coverage.

However, the Court held that the insureds were entitled to limited coverage of $2.5 million under the policy's 'Acquired Locations' clause, as the term 'purchased' was sufficiently ambiguous to trigger the contra proferentem doctrine in their favour.

The appeal was allowed in part.