Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 JANUARY 2017

When The Courts "Exclude" An Exclusionary Clause, Insurers Have A Duty To Defend

The present litigation resulted from two actions launched by Armel Drapeau (Drapeau) following an investigation carried out by the Financial and Consumer Services Commission...

CanadaInsurance

Arch Insurance Canada Ltd. v New Brunswick (Financial and Consumer Services Commission), 2016 NBCA 53.

Background

The present litigation resulted from two actions launched by Armel Drapeau (Drapeau) following an investigation carried out by the Financial and Consumer Services Commission (Commission) into Drapeau's business of trading securities. The first action was brought by Drapeau against employees of the Commission in 2011. He alleged that the employees had defamed him by stating to the media that he and others were involved in a Ponzi scheme. The second action was brought by Drapeau in 2013 against the Commission and Investia Financial Services Inc. (Investia). He alleged that the Commission had informed Investia of its investigation into Drapeau's affairs leading Investia to unlawfully terminate a contract with him.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from