Canada: Austeville Properties Ltd. v. Josan Et Al.: Exploding Taco Del Mar Makes For Interesting Application Of The Corporate Identification Doctrine And New Law On Insurance Covenants

Many in Vancouver will remember when the Taco Del Mar restaurant on West Broadway exploded in the early morning hours of February 13, 2008. That explosion resulted in damage to the office building which contained the Taco Del Mar and to buildings across the street. Austeville Properties Ltd. v. Josan et al., 2016 BCSC 1963 is an action that arose out of the efforts of the landlord's insurer to recover over $3 million paid out to the landlord for property damage repairs and business interruption losses arising from that explosion. The landlord's insurer brought a subrogated action in the name of the plaintiff landlord against its corporate tenant and several other individuals including the only two directors of the corporate tenant, Mr. and Mrs. Nandha.

The facts of this case are extraordinary. Mrs. Nandha and her husband owned a company, Nandha Enterprises Ltd. ("NEL"), which owned and operated two Taco Del Mar restaurants. The evidence was that Mrs. Nandha was unhappy with her life and believed that if she did not have to run both of NEL's restaurants, then she would have more time to spend with her children. As a result, the evidence was that she asked a friend (Mr. Josan) to set fire to the restaurant premises in order to get out of the lease with the landlord.

When the director of a small company, which leases premises from a landlord, conspires to set fire to the premises, should the corporate tenant be attributed with that director's act of conspiring to commit arson and, if so, should the corporate tenant be immune from tort liability by operation of an insurance covenant found in the lease?

This decision makes two key findings on these issues:

  1. The attribution of the actions of a director to the company, even in a small and closely held company, is not automatic. Rather, the test for the corporate identification theory must be satisfied. Where the actions of the directing mind of a company were done outside the scope of his or her authority, and not for the benefit of the company, the actions of the director will not be attributed to the company; and
  2. Insurance covenants, and the corresponding tort immunity in favor of the beneficiary (here the tenant), can extend to intentional torts.

There was uncontroverted evidence at trial that Mrs. Nandha conspired with Mr. Josan to set the fire. The trial judge accordingly found that Mrs. Nandha and the arsonist, Mr. Josan, conspired to set the fire.

The Plaintiff's claim against NEL was that NEL had breached its lease with the landlord by virtue of the conduct of Mrs. Nandha. The Plaintiff's argument was that Mrs. Nandha was NEL because NEL was a small company with only two directors and two shareholders, and Mrs. Nandha primarily ran NEL.

The first issue with respect to NEL's liability for the fire was whether the actions of Mrs. Nandha ought to be attributed to NEL in these circumstances. In order to attribute the conduct of Mrs. Nandha to NEL, both of which are separate persons at law, the Plaintiff relied on the corporate identification doctrine – a legal doctrine where the act of an individual who is found to be a "directing mind" of the corporation may be attributed to the corporation as if the company had committed, and intended to commit, the actual act itself. Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Canadian Dredge & Dock Co., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 662 [Canadian Dredge], the Honourable Mr. Justice Bowden stated that the corporate identification doctrine only operates where it is demonstrated that the action taken by the directing mind of the corporation was: (a) within the field of operation assigned to him; (b) not totally in fraud of the corporation; and (c) was by design or result partly for the benefit of the company.

Mr. Justice Bowden determined that both directors of NEL (Mr. and Mrs. Nandha) were its directing minds. However, the actions of Mrs. Nandha were found to be outside the scope of her authority as a director of NEL because she was acting for her own personal purposes (to spend more time with her children) in conspiring to set the fire, rather than acting in relation to the business of NEL (to run restaurants). Most of the cases in which the court found a director to be acting within his authority involved directors committing misconduct within the very nature of their role in the company. For example, see: Moore v. I. Bresler Ltd., [1944] 2 All ER 515; Canadian Dredge; Dixon v. Deacon Morgan McEwen Easson (1993), 102 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (BCCA).

The trial judge also found that Mrs. Nandha's actions, while not fraud in the classic sense, were found to be directed at the destruction of one of NEL's two restaurants. In so doing, Mrs. Nandha ceased to be a directing mind of the company: Canadian Dredge at page 712 – 713.

Lastly, the trial evidence failed to establish that Mrs. Nandha intended to benefit NEL, or that there was an actual benefit to NEL, arising from the destruction of the Taco Del Mar Restaurant. The court did not accept the Plaintiff's evidence that the Broadway Taco Del Mar was in dire financial straits given the lack of evidence on this point. The Plaintiff's reliance on NEL's financial statements alone, without an accounting expert's opinion, could not suffice to show a benefit was realized by NEL as a result of the fire. Further, Mrs. Nandha's primary motivation in destroying one of the restaurants was to find more time to spend with her children, something she believed she was unable to do while running NEL's two restaurants. Mr. Josan's evidence was the Mrs. Nandha never mentioned an intention to benefit NEL through setting the fire. In fact, Mrs. Nandha did not ever tell Mr. Josan about the existence of NEL. His Lordship held that Mrs. Nandha's conducted was motived for purely personal reasons.

Having found that Mrs. Nandha's act of conspiracy could not be attributed to NEL in this instance, the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim against NEL failed, as did the claim against Mr. Nandha.

Mr. Justice Bowden went on to consider whether an insurance covenant contained in the lease between the Plaintiff and NEL could provide immunity to NEL in the context of an intentional tort if Mrs. Nandha's actions had been attributed to NEL. While he did not need to make this obiter finding in order to dispose of the case before him, his comments are the first of their kind in Canada concerning insurance covenants in leases and intentional torts.

An insurance covenant is a provision which is commonly included in leases where one party undertakes to insure the building against loss or damage and the other undertakes to pay for the insurance. What arises from this type of provision is often referred to as "tort immunity" for the party paying for the insurance. Essentially, the insured party cannot sue the party paying for the insurance for losses which are covered by the insurance the parties agreed to obtain under the insurance covenant.

In Canada, insurance covenants have been interpreted to extend tort immunity to cases where the cause of action alleged has been negligence, vicarious liability, breaches of contract and gross negligence. However, no Canadian decision had determined whether an insurance covenant ought to apply to prevent parties from suing one another for loss or damage caused by an intentional tort. The insurance covenant in the lease read as follows:


7.05. To insure the building to its full insurable replacement value against loss or damage by fire. The expense of such insurance shall be borne as provided in paragraphs 12.01 and 12.02 hereof. To the extent that any loss or damage to the building is covered by insurance maintained by the Landlord hereunder, the Landlord releases the Tenant from any and all liability for such loss or damage whether or not the same is caused by or contributed to by or through the negligence of the Tenant or its servants and agents.

Mr. Justice Bowden determined that insurance covenants transfer the risk of loss between parties, regardless of whether the cause of the loss is an intentional tort. This was so, at least in this case, because "[t]he insurance obligation under the covenant is concerned with the occurrence of the peril and not the cause of the peril." Had Mrs. Nandha's conduct been attributed to NEL, NEL would still have been protected from the subrogated action brought by the Plaintiff because the losses had been caused by fire and were covered by the insurance the Plaintiff agreed to obtain under s. 7.05 of the lease.

It remains to be determined whether other courts will adopt Mr. Justice Bowden's reasoning concerning insurance covenants in a context outside of these extraordinary facts. It is important to note that the insurance covenant found at s. 7.05 of the lease referred to "loss or damage by fire" and did not contain an express limitation concerning intentional torts. The impact of this decision will likely be to further restrict subrogated claims in the context of insurance covenants.

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions