A recent decision by the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal reminds us of the potential coverage issues surrounding off-road vehicles, such as all-terrain vehicles, commonly referred to as ATVs.

Abbas v Esurance Insurance Company of Canada stablishes a bright-line rule under section 554(1) of the Alberta Insurance Act.

The Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) has released a decision that reiterates a key guiding principle in proceedings brought to enforce an insurer's duty to defend: the court must carefully ...

In Sir Corp v. Aviva, an Ontario judge dismissed an application by a restaurateur for a declaration of coverage for business interruption losses.

The insured has a duty to cooperate with defence counsel appointed by his insurer. The Ontario Court of Appeal recently reconfirmed that this duty to cooperate is not subject to a standard of perfection.

An insurer's duty to defend an action against its insured is triggered by the mere possibility that a claim could be made under the insured's policy.

An Ontario court recently found that a personal injury claim, by a daughter against her mother, was covered by homeowner's insurance.

Having found that the clause was ambiguous, the Court moved on to apply the general rules of contract construction.

A recent Ontario case illustrates the complex nature of insurance law. It also demonstrates what can happen when a party to a coverage claim fails to have the proper advice on coverage issues.

The Ontario Court of Appeal's recent decision in G & P Procleaners and General Contractors Inc. v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co.

In Gill v The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, the British Columbia Court of Appeal was tasked with determining what parts of a home are "within the dwelling" when interpreting coverage provisions in a homeowner's insurance policy.

Many all-risks insurance policies exclude damage caused by a contractor's faulty workmanship. The breadth of these "faulty workmanship" exclusions vary considerably.

Ontario's two year limitation period often becomes a trap for unwary policy holders who suffer a property loss.

On January 30, 2026 the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-awaited decision in Emond v. Trillium Mutual Insurance Co. The Court had to consider the relationship between a homeowner's property...

The Respondent was the contractor for an eight-story reinforced concrete structure being built as a major addition to the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria, B.C.

In Coachman Insurance Co. v. Kraft, a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court, the Court found that "use" of a "motorized vehicle" in a homeowner's policy exclusion includes the conduct...

On January 15, 2021, the UK's Supreme Court (UKSC) rendered its much-awaited decision on business interruption (BI) coverage for COVID-19 (the "Test Case").

On March 23, 2020, the Ontario government announced that to fight the spread of COVID-19, effective March 24th at 11:59 pm...

A statutory exclusion for loss attributable to "wilful misconduct" of the insured does not require proof that the insured intended to cause the loss.

An Ontario court recently found that the injuries sustained by a pedestrian when eggs were thrown at her from a vehicle arose "directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile".