The Court of Appeal on April 26th, 2016, dealt with the
enforceability of an Assumption of Defence of Agreement in
Seidel v. Town of Markham et al.. The facts of the case
are as follows:
The Plaintiff sustained a slip and fell and commenced an action
against the Town of Markham (hereinafter
"Markham") and indicated that the incident
occurred on March 6th, 2011. Markham had retained V.T.A.
Construction LTD as the winter maintenance contractor. A statement
of defence and Third party Claim was issued as against V.T.A. and
its insurer Intact. The contract between V.T.A. and Markham had
Markham added as an additional insured to its policy with Intact
"but only with respect to the legal liability arising out of
the operations of [V.T.A.]". In the third party claim, Markham
sought a declaration from Intact that it owed a duty to defend and
The Plaintiff added V.T.A. as a defendant to the action.
Counsel for Markham prepared an Assumption of Defence Agreement
that provided that Intact would assume the defence of Markham and
indemnify Markham with respect to any damages in the action.
Counsel for V.T.A. advised that Intact would not be executing the
agreement but that his office would serve a Notice of Change of
Lawyers. Counsel for Markham advised that the agreement did not
have to be signed as along as Markham was covered for any
amounts arising from a finding of liability against it.
Counsel for V.T.A. delivered a Notice of Change of Lawyers, which
indicated that he was now counsel for both V.T.A. and Markham. For
16.5 months, counsel represented both, including at examinations
In December 2013, counsel brought a motion to remove itself as
solicitor of record and new counsel was appointed for V.T.A. but
not for Markham. Markham brought a motion under Rule 49 to
enforce the settlement agreement.
The appeal was allowed and it was found that the motion judge
erred in finding that there was no agreement. The Court of Appeal
found that the question was not whether there was an agreement, but
Secondly, the motion judge erred in concluding that Intact
"could not have agreed to indemnify Markham for liability in
the action, except as resulted from V.T.A.'s
Although the maintenance contract indicated this, the agreement
between counsel was different. Furthermore, the actions of Intact
indicated the latter agreement.
By having one counsel act for both Markham and V.T.A. meant that
their interests were the same and aligned and not adverse in
interest. This was found to be an important determinative fact.
Intact had agreed to both defend and indemnify
Markham, including in respect of its own negligence, unrelated to
V.T.A.'s actions, or lack thereof.
The Court of Appeal found that this was an agreement to
indemnify and therefore found that Intact had to defend Markham at
its sole expense and indemnify it for any damages and costs
What other alternatives did Intact have?
It could have denied both the duty to
defend and indemnification obligations leaving Markham on its own,
and indicating that V.T.A. and Markham were adverse ;
It could have resisted the claim for
indemnification but accepted the obligation to defend, assuming the
cost of Markham's defence, and indicating adversity between
V.T.A. and Markham. Another counsel would have had to be appointed
However, by choosing to have the same counsel defend both V.T.A.
and Markham, demonstrated alignment in interest, and it was too
late now for Intact, to indicate otherwise.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
The recent Preliminary Issue decision in Walsh and Echelon (FSCO A15-007448, August 31, 2016) confirms that an economic loss does not need to be demonstrated in order to be entitled to attendant care benefits.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Policyholders recently won a key victory at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co. as the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of a standard form...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).