Edited by Amanda Kostek
Last week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
McGregor v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2025 ABKB 227
Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy
Solis v Sfakianakis, 2025 ABKB 211
Minor’s Property
McGregor v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2025 ABKB 227
In McGregor v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2025 ABKB 227, the Insured was making cannabis oil in his garage, which resulted in a fire in 2017 when the production of cannabis oil was illegal. The fire resulted in property damage and personal injury to two visitors. The Insured pled guilty to two criminal charges arising out of the fire including causing the fire, and unlawful possession of a controlled substance. The policy contained an exclusion for harvesting or processing any drug, narcotic, or illegal substance, and a further exclusion for bodily injury or property damage caused by an intentional or criminal act. The Court concluded that there was no coverage. The exclusion was clear, and the Insured’s intention did not matter:
[49] That is precisely what the Defendant in this case did with the exclusion set out in Section II- Exclusion 6 of the Policy. Exclusion 6 expressly excludes from indemnity, claims arising from bodily injury or property damage caused by any criminal acts that are committed by the insured. The intention of the insured is irrelevant. I accept that the “language of the exclusion is disjunctive”. An act of an insured that causes injury is clearly excluded when it is either an intentional act, or a criminal act.
[50] While the insured need not intend to cause the injury for the exclusion to apply, the criminal act must still nevertheless be the cause of the injury for the exclusion to relieve the Defendant from its obligation to indemnify the insured. On this issue, one need only look at the charges to which the insured pled guilty. Mr. McGregor admitted that he “did cause a fire or explosion in the said property that caused bodily harm to Clifford McGregor, Christopher Coffin and Bryan McIntosh, contrary to section 436(1) of the Criminal Code”. In light of this admission, the essential facts necessary to trigger the exclusion exist and relieve the Defendant of its obligations to indemnify the Plaintiffs.
Solis v Sfakianakis, 2025 ABKB 211
In Solis v Sfakianakis, 2025 ABKB 211 the Court concluded that although the settlement of the minor’s claim was reasonable, the contingency fee agreement was unenforceable. As a result, the Court reduced legal fees by approximately 50% and increased the Child’s share of the settlement even though the Public Trustee consented to the proposed order approving the contingency fee. The Court concluded that the contingency fee agreement failed to contain the language required by the Rules of Court, and was therefore unenforceable:
[16] In this case, I find that the Contingency Agreement did not comply with the requirements of rule 10.7. In particular, the Contingency Agreement contemplated counsel receiving an amount from a costs award, but did not include language mandated by rule 10.7(2)(f)(iii) and (iv); it also did not include all the language mandated by rule 10.7(2)(h)(i) and (ii). In these circumstances, the Contingency Agreement is unenforceable, and legal counsel is only entitled to charges determined in accordance with rule 10.2.