ING Halifax v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada et al., [2002] O.T.C. 879 (SC)

• Judge: Browne, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: October 30, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: [2002] O.T.C. 879 (SC)

ING Halifax v. Guardian Ins. Co., [2002] O.T.C. 879 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] O.T.C. TBEd. NO.063

ING Halifax (applicant) v. Guardian Insurance Company of Canada, Adam Murtezai, Tefik Murtezai and Courtesy Ford Lincoln Sales Limited (respondents)

(Court File No. 31942)

Indexed As: ING Halifax v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Browne, J.

November 1, 2002.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Insurance - Topic 725

Insurers - Duties - Duty to defend - See paragraphs 1 to 16.

Insurance - Topic 785

Insurers - Liability - Where two or more policies cover risk - Primary v. excess insurance - See paragraphs 17 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

Dominion of Canada General Insurance v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1989), 68 O.R.(2d) 149 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

Trapp Motors Ltd. v. Pawson, [1939] 2 D.L.R. 365 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Waller v. Gulf Oil Canada Ltd., Servico Ltd., Poulin and Zita (1977), 33 N.R. 225; 17 O.R.(2d) 408 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Waller v. Gulf Oil Canada Ltd., Servico Ltd., Poulin and Zita (1978), 33 N.R. 213; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 745 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Waller v. Gulf Oil Canada Ltd., Servico Ltd., Poulin and Zita (1980), 33 N.R. 211; 120 D.L.R.(3d) 384 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I-8, sect. 239(1) [para. 18]; sect. 257(1) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Douglas Wallace, for the applicant;

Geoffrey D.E. Adair, for the respondents, Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada and Courtesy Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd.;

John Watson, for the respondents, Adam Murtezai and Tefik Murtezai.

This application was heard on October 30, 2002, before Browne, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who released the following decision on November 1, 2002.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.