Summary

36603

[D.E.], et al. v. Unifund Assurance Company

(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)

(Publication ban in case) (Publication ban on party)

Keywords

Insurance - Liability insurance.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (PUBLICATION BAN ON PARTY)

Insurance — Liability insurance — Insurers’ duty to defend and indemnify — Negligence — Whether test in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633, for giving deference to lower court’s interpretation of contracts has been abandoned for decisions considering insurance policies — Whether Court of Appeal fundamentally changed judicial rules for interpreting insurance contracts in Canada.

The applicants, D.E. and L.E., have a homeowners’ insurance policy with the respondent, Unifund Assurance Company. The policy includes liability coverage if their personal actions cause unintentional bodily injury or property damage. D.E. and L.E. are defendants in a lawsuit where the anchor claim is that their daughter and two other girls, all Grade 8 students, bullied a fellow student, causing her physical and psychological injuries. The claim against D.E. and L.E. sounds in negligence, namely, their failure to control their daughter. D.E. and L.E. requested that Unifund defend and indemnify them pursuant to the insurance policy. Unifund refused, relying principally on two exclusion clauses in the policy. D.E. and L.E. brought an application seeking a declaration that Unifund had a duty to defend and indemnify them in the underlying action.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the application for a declaration that the respondent has a duty to defend and indemnify the applicants in the underlying action. The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice, and declared the respondent does not have a duty to defend and indemnify the applicants.