Legal Columns


Analysis of an insurer's duty to defend in the wake of the Progressive Homes decision

by Laurence Gévry-Fortier,
Norton Rose Canada


This Legal Column was published in the January 2012’s Edition of MAIW’s Bulletin


A little over a year ago, we discussed the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada.¹ We now wish to examine two recent decisions that have discussed this case and confirmed its applicability in Quebec civil law.

Lombard du Canada c. Mont-Tremblant (City)²
Facts and Judgment in the first instance


Exploitation agricole et forestière des Laurentides inc. ("Exploitation") owned a number of lots located on both sides of Route 117 in St-Jovite, a municipality that now forms part of the City of Mont-Tremblant (the "City"). In January 1995, the City notified Exploitation of its intention to rezone the lots for commercial and industrial. Despite Exploitation's opposition, the by-law effecting it was adopted on April 26, 1999. Exploitation responded by filing a motion against the City in October 1999 in an attempt to nullify the by-law.

>Read more


Previous Legal Columns

>The Goulet decision : Morally acceptable
>An expert's role during a trial: the Court of Appeal renders judgment
>The reinsurer and the insured: complete strangers'
>Fire Safety Act:A First Interpretation of the Immunity
>The absence of a written disclosure of a latent defect : a defect to avoid
>Subrogation within the scope of civil liability insurance
>SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Revisits the duty to defend
>Sports Center: Be Vigilant
>Latent defects: the insurer and the extent of compensation
>Defamation on the Internet: the right to one's reputation vs. freedom of expression
>The expansion of the concept of "necessity" in the area of forced intervention: the Court of Appeal speaks in the Kingsway case
>The Helicopter or the Horse' Has the Quebec court of appeal just redefined the limits of the duty to defend'

Archives