For the first time, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a decision that considered issues of statutory misrepresentation in an offering statement under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1994 (Act). Polla v. Croatian (Toronto) Credit Union also provides extensive guidance on issues of directors’ and officers’ liability more generally. There is very limited jurisprudence in this area, and this landmark decision is expected to provide valuable guidance to boards and insurers on risk prevention. This insight provides a high-level overview of the decision.
The Defendant, Carlyle McIntyre (McIntyre), took his vehicle into Calgary Propane and Automotive (Calgary Propane) for repairs. A Calgary Propane employee, Lewis Morgan (Morgan), took the vehicle out for a test drive and collided with a vehicle driven by Brent McIver (McIver), causing McIver injuries. Both Morgan and McIver were driving in the course of their employment, but at trial, Morgan’s negligence was found to have caused the collision.
McIver obtained benefits from the Workers’ Compensation scheme under the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15 (WCA), and the Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”) sued McIntyre on the basis that McIntyre was vicariously liable for McIver’s loss as owner of the vehicle under s.
On October 17, 2018, the lion’s share of the federal Cannabis Act1 and the Ontario Cannabis Act, 20172 took legal effect, marking the legalization of non-medical cannabis across Canada, within defined limits. Directors and officers of federal and provincial corporations in the legal cannabis sector now operate in a new and dynamic regulatory climate.
As with any regulated industry, directors and officers should apprise themselves of the legal pitfalls in the post-legalization world, and liability insurers should prepare carefully for the potential risks that might shadow the cannabis market in its early days.
At a minimum, liability insurers should consider (a) new offences to which directors and officers are exposed, (b) what procedures are in place with respect to those offences, (c) what penalties might a director or officer be liable to pay, and (d) what defences are available, if any.
Named insureds are mentioned by name in the contract as persons to whom insurance proceeds are payable. Typically, named insureds are the purchasers of the insurance. In contrast, unnamed insureds are not mentioned by name in the contract but are entitled to receive insurance benefits because they fall within a particular class of person covered by the contract.
In the past, it has been uncertain how the courts will interpret the general language of standard form releases in the insurance context (i.e. it was not always clear whether broadly-worded releases would be enforceable against unforeseen claims). Recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal ( “Court”) provided some clarity on this subject. The Court held that express language is required to exclude claims that were not contemplated, provided that the language of the release is sufficiently broad.
Insurers carrying on business in Canada are regulated as to solvency (usually at the federal level by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions) and as to market conduct (at the provincial/territorial level) by the local insurance regulator. The test for “carrying on business” is not consistent across the country – from a solvency perspective, it usually relates to the location of the insuring activities, such as where negotiations take place, where insuring decisions take place and how marketing is conducted; from a market conduct perspective, it usually relates to the location of the marketing and promotion activities, though in some provinces having a local risk is sufficient.