Taylor v Town of Georgina,  OJ No 4882 (SCJ), 2010 ONCA 713
Successfully argued on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff’s action for breach of contract should be dismissed for delay.
Aquatech Logistics Inc. and Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Lombard Insurance Company, ACE INA Insurance, Lloyd’s Underwriters, Economical Mutual and Jevco, 2015 ONSC 5858
The accidental delivery of hydrochloric acid instead of chlorine to a swimming pool gave rise to a poisonous cloud of potentially deadly chlorine gas, and some litigation, including a class action proceeding. On behalf of the defendant and its insurer, this was an application against one insurer under the relevant comprehensive general liability policy and another insurer under a pollution incident liability policy for a sharing of the expense obligation.
The principals of equitable contribution were applied, and the insurers in question were required to pay their share of the defence.
Sterling Electrical Contractors Inc v Aviva Insurance, 2014 ONSC 823
Successful motion requiring an insured to post $20,000 in security for costs, in an action for coverage under a commercial insurance policy for a reported theft loss. The action was subsequently dismissed, after the insured failed to pay the costs within the time period ordered.
McKenzie v Zhang, Aviva Insurance, 2013 ONSC 982;  ILR I-5400
Successful motion confirming that an insurer’s obligation to indemnify under a policy must be determined as of when the loss occurred and not when the insurer became obligated to pay accident benefits.
Liu v University of Toronto, 2010 ONWSIAT 2352; 2011 ONSC 1522
A successful application brought on behalf of the University. The plaintiff was found to be in the course of employment at the time of the loss, with the result that his action is barred by statute.
Cellupica v Elite Insurance, 2011 ONSC CV-08-367672 (Toronto)
A jury trial victory representing the defendant insurer. The insured was unable to prove that a theft of a vessel occurred for coverage under an insurance policy or that the insurer acted in bad faith in denying the claim.
Apparel licensee v Apparel licensor, ICC. In July 2008
Our firm squared off against 6 counsel, including a team led by one of the country’s most recognized trial counsel in this commercial dispute. The hearing went 3 weeks in front of a panel of three senior international arbitrators of the International Chamber of Commerce concerning liability and damages arising from the termination of our client’s longstanding licensing agreement.
The hearing was the culmination of several years of intensive work in this document intensive, hard-fought battle. Damages were in the 8 figures. After the conclusion of the hearing, with the decision pending, settlement was achieved that was entirely satisfactory to our client, and the matter resolved.
Comer v Pilot Insurance,  OJ No 1211 (SCJ)
A trial victory on a questionable theft claim. The insured was unable to prove that a theft took place for coverage under the policy.
Hollinger Inc v American Home Assurance Co,  OJ No 1791 (SCJ),  OJ No 1898 (SCJ),  OJ No 4424 (SCJ)
Christopher Reain and Clarence Lui successfully defended claims by Hollinger Inc. for repayment of defence costs arising from class actions against its officers and directors.
Mabe Canada Inc v United Floor Ltd, 2016 ONSC 1060; 2016 ONSC 5794; 2017 ONCA 879
A record-breaking rainstorm caused a flood at the 300,000 sq ft Mabe warehouse in Brantford, Ontario causing widespread damage to the warehoused goods.
At trial, and on appeal, the focus was on the behavior of our client, a specialist concrete flooring contractor, and whether or not the flooring contractor had met the relevant standard of care pouring the concrete floor in this large warehouse. Result: action and appeal dismissed with (substantial) costs on the basis that the concrete flooring contractor was found to have met the relevant standard of care.
Toronto-Dominion Bank, N.A. v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, 2016 ONSC 2464; 2016 ONSC 8006; 2017 ONCA 1011
Successful appeal overturning a partial summary judgment that was granted to a Bank, in relation to an insurance policy for a $300M claim concerning a Florida lawyer and customer of the Bank who ran a Ponzi scheme involving the fraudulent sale of non-existing interests in structured settlements supposedly handled by his law firm.
Scottish & York Insurance Co Ltd v Tabidze (10 April 2017), CV-15-532119 (Toronto)
Judgment against the defendant interpreter complicit in an insurance rate evasion scheme involving 36 policies of automobile insurance, following a Mareva injunction that was issued during the litigation which froze the sale of her home.
Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v Samir (28 February 2017), CV-14-514641 (Toronto)
Judgment against an individual defendant, after the insurer indemnified its insured for a theft loss and discovered that the defendant, who is unrelated to the insured, had hid the stolen asset inside his garage. The asset was secured through a search warrant executed at his residence by the police service.
Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v DP Consulting,  OJ No 1312 (SCJ)
In a first known reported decision in Canada, the trial judge found an unlicensed insurance “consultant” to have committed civil fraud against our insurer client for her rate evasion scheme. The fraudster solicited and provided services to individuals through her website and Instagram account, and exchanged information with policy applicants on quotes she obtained through text messages. She misrepresented her identity to brokers and obtained policies on behalf of the applicants by providing false rating information.
A judgment including punitive and exemplary damages at an amount five times the sum awarded for compensatory damages, together with an order for accounting and tracing, was granted in the insurer’s favour.
Mroz v Mroz,  OJ No 7292 (Div Ct)
Successful appeal affirming the absence of relationship between a storage facility and the insurer of its customer.
Ayach v. Aviva Canada Inc.,  OJ No 5006 (SCJ)
Successful motion for summary judgment on the basis that the claim for a reported theft of a vehicle was time barred.
1179640 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. 1st Choice Auto Centre) v. DaSilva, 2020 ONSC 5456 (Div Ct)
Successful appeal confirming the strict requirements that have to be met under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 before a lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act can be enforced.
Traders Insurance v Kayes et al, 2020 ONSC 5991, 2020 ONSC 7227
Summary judgment against fraudsters for perpetrating a calculated and prolonged scheme to defraud the insurer, in which the court characterized the actions of the fraudsters as deliberate and reprehensible.