Fellowes v. Kansa Gen. Intl. Ins., (2000) 138 O.A.C. 28 (CA)

• Judge: Weiler, Rosenberg and Goudge, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: September 11, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2000), 138 O.A.C. 28 (CA)

Fellowes v. Kansa Gen. Intl. Ins. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 28 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.015

Fellowes, McNeil (appellant) v. Kansa General International Insurance Company Ltd. and Kansa Canadian Management Services Inc. (respondents)

(C30847)

Indexed As: Fellowes, McNeil v. Kansa General International Insurance Co. et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Weiler, Rosenberg and Goudge, JJ.A.

September 11 and November 9, 2000.

Summary:

The plaintiff, a law firm specializing in insurance matters, acted for the defendants. The defendants terminated their relationship and directed that its files be transferred to two other law firms. The plaintiff sued the defendants for the collection of 62 unpaid accounts and also claimed damages for breach of contract, damages for negligence, punitive damages, and, alternatively, remu­neration on a quantum meruit basis. The defendants counterclaimed, alleging profes­sional negligence by the firm resulting in compensable losses and/or damages.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported (1997), 45 O.T.C. 271, ordered, inter alia, that the main action proceed first. The parties resolved all but three remaining issues before the start of the trial in the main action.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported (1997), 45 O.T.C. 279, decided the remaining issues.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported 79 O.T.C. 241, dealt with the counterclaims. The court concluded, inter alia, that the plaintiff law firm was negligent with respect to two separate matters (the "Little mini-trial" and the "Uniroyal mini-trial"). The plaintiff appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in the Little mini-trial but allowed the appeal in the Uniroyal mini-trial.

Editor's Note: For related decisions involv­ing these parties see 2 O.T.C. 337 and 101 O.A.C. 238; 49 O.T.C. 339.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2501

Negligence - General principles - Stan­dard of care - An insurance company alleged that its solicitors were negligent in the handling of their claims - When deter­mining the issue, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the insurance company had to prove that the solicitor's acts or omissions fell below the generally accepted standard of care that the solicitor owed to the insurance company, and that they caused foreseeable damage - In this case, the standard of care of the solicitor was that of a reasonably competent lawyer who was an expert in insurance litigation - See paragraphs 4 and 5.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2594

Negligence - Particular negligent acts - Failure to inform or advise client - An insurance company provided, inter alia, errors and omissions insurance to law firms - It provided such insurance to firm A - Firm A was subsequently sued for negligence and the insurance company was liable for compensation - Thereafter, the insurance company alleged that McNeil, its solicitor, was negligent in handling the claim - Particularly, the insurance company forwarded its insurance applications to McNeil for review - McNeil was negligent because he failed to notice on Firm A's application that there was a potential claim against it - The insurance company as­serted that had McNeil found and disclosed this information, it would not have pro­vided Firm A with insurance - The trial judge allowed the claim - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed McNeil's ap­peal - See paragraphs 14 to 72.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2600

Negligence - Particular negligent acts - Failure to protect client's interests - [See Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 2594 ].

Cases Noticed:

Confederation Life Insurance Co. v. Shep­herd et al., [1992] O.J. No. 2595 (Gen. Div.), revd. in part (1996), 88 O.A.C. 398 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) v. Riggins et al. (1992), 131 A.R. 205; 25 W.A.C. 205; 5 Alta. L.R.(3d) 66 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Gouzenko v. Harris et al. (1976), 13 O.R.(2d) 730 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Wong et al. v. 407527 Ontario Ltd. et al. (1999), 125 O.A.C. 101; 179 D.L.R.(4th) 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Scalera v. Lloyd's of London (2000), 253 N.R. 1; 135 B.C.A.C. 161; 221 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 1].

Sansalone v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. et al. (2000), 253 N.R. 95; 135 B.C.A.C. 255; 221 W.A.C. 255 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 1].

Godonoaga v. Khatambakhsk (2000), 132 O.A.C. 392 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 1].

Sayle v. Jevco Insurance Co. Management Co. (1984), 58 B.C.L.R. 122 (S.C.), affd. (1985), 16 C.C.L.I. 309 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Montreal Trust Co. of Canada v. Birming­ham Lodge Ltd. et al. (1996), 82 O.A.C. 25; 24 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Fisher v. R., [1961] O.W.N. 94 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Murphy v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (1964), 49 D.L.R.(2d) 412 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Moore v. Canadian Lawyers Insurance Association (1993), 123 N.S.R.(2d) 414; 340 A.P.R. 414; 18 C.C.L.I.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254; 193 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 49].

Fasken, Campbell, Godfrey et al. v. Seven-Up Canada Inc. et al. (2000), 128 O.A.C. 249 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Major v. Buchanan (1975), 9 O.R.(2d) 491 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Laurencine v. Jardine, [1988] O.J. No. 302 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

Hopkins v. Wellington et al. (1999), 12 B.C.T.C. 202 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 63].

Midland Bank Trust Co. et al. v. Hett, Stubbs and Kemp, [1978] 3 All E.R. 571 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 65].

Rosenblood Estate v. Law Society of Up­per Canada (1989), 37 C.C.L.I. 142 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1992), 16 C.C.L.I.(2d) 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Northern Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Reierson, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 390; 8 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 69].

Fisher v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Cana­da (1995), 3 B.C.L.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Nichols v. American Home Assurance Co. et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 801; 107 N.R. 321; 39 O.A.C. 63; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] I.L.R. I-2583, refd to. [para. 76].

Murphy Oil Co. v. Continental Insurance Co. (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 853 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84].

State of New York v. Travellers Indemnity Co. of Rhode Island (1986), 506 N.Y.S.2d 698 (N.Y.A.D.), refd to. [para. 84].

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Plan­tation Pipeline Co. (1994), 447 S.E.2d 89 (G.A. Ap.), refd to. [para. 84].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Report of the Federal/Provincial Task Force on Uniform Rule of Evidence (1982), p. 554 [para. 67].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 540, 545, 546 [para. 67].

Counsel:

Wendell S. Wigle, Q.C., and Mario R. Pietrangeli, for the appellant;

A. Burke Doran, Q.C., and Clive Elkin, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on February 29, 2000, before Weiler, Rosenberg and Goudge, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On September 11, 2000, Weiler, J.A., released the judgment for the court, and the following addendum on November 9, 2000.