Durham District School Board v. Grodesky,  O.J. No. 1829 (C.A.) On April 27, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Durham District School Board v. Grodesky, on review from the Ontario Superior Court. The panel overturned the lower Court’s decision and ruled that ING Insurance Company of Canada (“ING”) could not rely on an Intentional/Criminal Acts exclusion to deny its policyholder, Todd James (“James”), a defence.
This paper was included in the presentation materials by Dominic C. Clark[i] at the Osgoode Professional Development National Update on Commercial Insurance Law and Coverage Disputes, November 3, 2011, in Toronto.
This paper was included in the presentation materials by Mark G. Lichty and Jason Mangano on CGL Policy Interpretation Principles at the Canadian Defence Lawyers Insurance Coverage Primer, Toronto, on September 30, 2011.
Introduction: A Test Drive of the Stonewall Decision In 1995 the United States Court of Appeal (for the Second Circuit) released its decision in Stonewall Insurance Company v. Asbestos Claims Management Corporation, 73 F.3d 1178. That case ignited an insurance coverage debate about whether or not a policyholder must contribute to pay defence costs to reflect years during which it had no insurance coverage. This debate has been raging in many US jurisdictions ever since.