TD Bank, N.A. v. "Lloyd's Underwriters" that subscribe to policy number MMF/1710, primary London reference number B0509QA025509 and excess London reference numbers QA025609, QA025709, QA025809, and QA025909 et al. (Ont.)

Judgments and orders – Summary judgment

TD Bank, N.A. (the "Bank") is a named insured under a "Bankers Comprehensive Crime, Professional Indemnity and Directors' and Officers' Liability Programme" insurance policy issued by the respondents, a syndicate of insurers. The relevant portion of the insurance policy includes a financial institutions bond or "fidelity coverage", for claims involving employee dishonesty and a professional liability provision.

A Florida lawyer and customer of the Bank ran a Ponzi scheme involving the fraudulent sale of non-existing interests in structured settlements supposedly handled by his law firm. Substantial funds placed by investors flowed through the law firm's accounts at the Bank. After the scheme collapsed, about 19 investor groups sued the Bank. One investor group "Coquina Investments" obtained judgment against the Bank based on claims for fraudulent misrepresentations and conduct by Bank employees that aided and abetted the fraudster. The plaintiffs were awarded $32 million in compensatory damages and $17.5 million in punitive damages by a jury. That decision was upheld on appeal.

Following that judgment, the Bank settled with the other investors and paid out the claims. The Bank then sought indemnity under both the professional liability coverage and fidelity coverage sections of the insurance policy for amounts paid to the investor groups. The insurers denied coverage under both sections.

The Bank brought a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaration concerning the interpretation of one element of the preamble to the fidelity coverage section of the insurance policy, that it had sustained a "direct financial loss". The motion judge granted partial summary judgment, concluding that the Bank had suffered direct financial loss within the meaning of the policy. That decision was overturned on appeal.


Sylvain Larocque v. Ville de Beauharnois and Attorney General of Quebec (Que.)

Constitutional law

The applicant Mr. Larocque contested a charge laid against him for an offence under the Highway Safety Code, CQLR, c. C-24.2. The Municipal Court convicted him of the offence and refused to deal with the constitutional questions he raised. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the appeal and rejected Mr. Larocque's constitutional argument. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Larocque's motion for leave to appeal.


Sylvain Larocque v. Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Canada - and - Attorney General of British Columbia, Chief Justice, Senior Associate Chief Justice and Associate Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court, Conseil de la magistrature du Québec, Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges, Conférence des juges de la Cour du Québec, Organisme d'autoréglementation du courtage immobilier du Québec (Que.)

Civil procedure – Jurisdiction

The applicant Mr. Larocque applied for leave to intervene in a reference made by the Attorney General of Quebec to the Quebec Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed his application.


Andrea Molnar v. Her Majesty the Queen (Man.)

Charter of Rights – Criminal law – Search and Seizure

The police conducted an investigation into a drug couriering operation. This included detaining the applicant, Ms. Molnar, who was travelling on a VIA Rail train from British Columbia to Ontario, and deploying a police drug dog which led to the discovery of 20 half-pound bags of marihuana in a suitcase. Ms. Molnar sought to have the evidence seized in the investigation excluded on the grounds of numerous breaches of her ss. 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 Charter rights. Following a voir dire, the trial judge held that Ms. Molnar's Charter rights had not been violated. Ms. Molnar was convicted of possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking. Ms. Molnar's conviction appeal was dismissed.


A.G. v. Société d'assurance automobile du Québec and Administrative Tribunal of Québec (Que.)

Contracts – Transaction

The applicant was involved in two bicycle accidents, following which he entered into an agreement with the respondent Société d'assurance automobile du Québec. He subsequently brought an application to annul the agreed transaction. The Superior Court found that the evidence could not justify annulling the agreement, so it dismissed his motion to annul the transaction. The Court of Appeal saw no reason to intervene and therefore dismissed the appeal.


Adventurer Owner Ltd. Dockendale House, West Bay Street, P.O. Box CB-13048, Nassau, Bahamas v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada - and between - Adventurer Owner Ltd., Owner, and all other interested in the ship M/V clipper adventurer and the ship M/V clipper adventurer v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, The Administrator of the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund (F.C.)

Maritime law – Liability in tort – Standard of care – Apportionment of liability – Damages

The applicant sued the Crown for US $13,498,431.19 in damages, after its ship, the Clipper Adventurer, sailed onto an uncharted, submerged shoal on its way to Kugluktuk, Nunavut. It argued that the Crown, and in particular the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Hydrographic Service, knew of the presence of the shoal, had a duty to warn, and failed to do so. While the Crown admitted that it knew of the shoal some three years prior to the incident, it argued that any duty to warn had been discharged by means of a Notice to Shipping and by a Navigational Area Warning. The Crown argued that the applicant had simply failed to update its Canadian Hydrographic Chart 7777. In its claim, the Crown sought to recover the costs and expenses it had incurred to prevent, repair and remedy or minimize the pollution damage caused by the accident. The Federal Court maintained the Crown's action but dismissed the applicant's. It concluded that the Crown had a duty to warn, that that duty had been discharged and that the accident was due solely to the applicant's own negligence. Finding no reviewable errors, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.


Sun Wave Forest Products Ltd., CGR Investments Inc. v. Susanna Xu also known as Jie Xu, Paul Veltmeyer, Biao Sun, Li Xu, Mike Sun, Sun Wave Management Ltd., Sun Wave Holdings Inc., TC Property Inc., SBS Management Ltd., API Enterprises Ltd., JL Pacific Transportation Inc. (B.C.)

Civil law Procedure

On May 15, 2008, Sun Wave Forest Products Ltd. and CGR Investments Inc. commenced proceedings against Susanna Xu, her family, and companies controlled by her or her family, claiming damages for conspiracy, fraud and misappropriation. On July 9, 2008, Ms. Xu filed a statement of defence and a counterclaim. In 2017, the defendants applied for dismissal of the action for want of prosecution. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.


Norman Eli Larue v. Her Majesty the Queen (Y.T.)

Criminal law – Evidence – Oath-helping – Appeals

Mr. Larue, applicant, was convicted of first degree murder. At trial, a key witness had refused to testify, and two hearsay statements were admitted under the principled approach to the hearsay rule. The statements were taken during a Mr. Big operation targeting the witness and Mr. Larue. Also at trial, the undercover officers involved in the Mr. Big operation testified that Mr. Big operations are designed to elicit truthful statements, and that the fictitious criminal organization in this case had adopted values of trust, honesty and loyalty which the witness accepted and adhered to. On appeal, Mr. Larue argued, among other things, that the hearsay evidence, as well as the impugned oath-helping evidence of the officers, should not have been admitted. The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Bennett J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the basis that the hearsay statements were inadmissible.