The appellant appealed a decision finding that the respondent insurer had no duty to defend under a comprehensive general liability policy.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the claims by unidentified victims of abuse at a residential school were not 'first made against the insured during the policy period'.
The court held that a general understanding of a problem without sufficient detail does not constitute a claim, and therefore the insurer owed no duty to defend the subsequent actions.
