Victor L. Vandergust

The applicants, former directors of PACE Savings & Credit Union, sought a declaration that CUMIS General Insurance Company had a duty to defend them in an action brought by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) as administrator of PACE.

CUMIS denied coverage based on the 'Insured vs. Insured' exclusion in the Directors' and Officers' Liability Policy.

The court held that while the exclusion applied, the 'derivative action' exception restored coverage because the FSRA, acting as a 'person', brought the claim on behalf of the corporation.

The court also ruled that applicants facing fraud claims were entitled to independent counsel due to a conflict of interest, while those facing only negligence claims were not.

A non-party mortgagee brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and a consent judgment from the title of a property it had sold under power of sale.

The plaintiffs, who were creditors of the mortgagor, opposed the motion, arguing the sale was improvident.

The court granted the motion, holding that the mortgagor's equity of redemption was extinguished upon the completion of the power of sale.

As the plaintiffs had no greater interest in the land than the mortgagor, and an action for improvident sale sounds in damages rather than an interest in land, the CPL and judgment could not be maintained on title.

The defendant, Harbouredge Mortgage Investment Corporation, brought motions for security for costs, transfer of action, and a stay of action.

The plaintiff, Morgis Properties Limited, had previously obtained an ex parte certificate of pending litigation (CPL), which was later discharged.

The court granted the defendant's motion for security for costs, ordering the plaintiff to pay $30,000 on a pay-as-you-go basis, finding the plaintiff had insufficient assets and its president had the financial ability to pay.

The defendant's motion to transfer the action was dismissed without prejudice due to procedural non-compliance, and the motion for a stay of action was dismissed as Rule 56.05 already addresses the inability to take steps without providing security.

The court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs for the CPL motion and partial indemnity costs for the security for costs motion, totaling $18,200, due to the plaintiff's improper conduct and lack of a reasonable claim.