Chris McKibbin

Email    PDF    VCard
P: 416-596-2899
F: 416-594-3598
  • Called to the Bar of Ontario, 2003
  • LL.B., University of Toronto, 2002
  • B.A., (Gold Medal), University of Manitoba, 1999
Play PodcastPlay Podcast
Chris McKibbin

In the highly-specialized world of fidelity and commercial crime insurance, Chris McKibbin has carved out a reputation as both a detail-oriented coverage counsel with an encyclopedic knowledge of his practice area, and an aggressive and strategic fraud recovery lawyer who has recovered millions of dollars for fidelity insurers from fraudsters, co-conspirators, auditors and banks over the course of his career. Chris was recognized by Lexpert® as a "Leading Lawyer to Watch" in Commercial Insurance Litigation in Canada in both 2018 and 2019, becoming a rare double recipient of this honour.

As one of the few lawyers in Canada whose practice focuses primarily on fidelity insurance, Chris has provided over 16 years of quality service and excellent results for virtually every fidelity insurer. Chris has been involved in most of the significant litigated fidelity coverage disputes in Canada since 2003. He served as co-counsel for the successful appellants before the Ontario Court of Appeal in the 2009 Iroquois Falls Community Credit Union decision, which is a leading decision in the fidelity area. He was also co-counsel for two successful insurers in Royal Bank of Canada v. Société Générale, an appeal arising from the $100 million King’s Health Centre fraud.

In his fraud recovery practice, Chris achieves results for clients as efficiently as possible. He secures Mareva and other injunctive relief in connection with the theft of money or confidential business information, as well as Norwich orders to successfully trace stolen funds. He has also developed an expertise in the arcane field of claims against banks on cheque fraud losses under the Bills of Exchange Act.

Chris is frequently invited to speak on fidelity insurance law and fraud recovery, and also writes extensively on these topics. In addition to editing Blaneys Fidelity Blog, he has also written on these topics for the Fidelity Law Journal and the American Bar Association’s Fidelity & Surety Law Committee Newsletter, as well as The Globe and Mail, the Canadian Journal of Insurance LawCanadian Insurance magazine, Claims Canada magazine, the National Banking Law Review and Canadian Corporate Counsel. Chris is also a co-author of the third edition of Handling Fidelity Bond Claims, the leading North American reference work in the field, and serves as Co-Chair of the International Section of the ABA Fidelity & Surety Law Committee.

In addition to his fidelity practice, Chris has significant experience in commercial property coverage and business interruption claims, CGL coverage analysis and duty-to-defend applications, and the defence of insureds under liability policies. He also acts for subrogating insurers in pursuing construction defect claims, fire loss claims, products liability claims and other subrogated claims.

Chris graduated from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, winning several academic awards and earning Dean’s Honour List standing in his final year. At the time of his call to the Bar, he received the Osgoode Society Award as one of the top 25 Bar Admission Course students in Ontario. Prior to law school, Chris attended the University of Manitoba, where he earned the Gold Medal for highest standing in his program and was a finalist for the Rhodes Scholarship.

  • LL.B., University of Toronto, 2002
  • B.A., (Gold Medal), University of Manitoba, 1999
 Practice Areas  Called to the Bar
  • Called to the Bar of Ontario, 2003
  • Dentons Canada LLP v. Trisura Guarantee Insurance Company, 2018 ONSC 7311 -

    Successfully obtained an order under rule 38.10(1)(b) converting an application for indemnity into an action. The litigation arises from a multimillion dollar Social Engineering Fraud (SEF) loss. The law firm declined an offer of SEF coverage prior to policy inception, but commenced an application seeking coverage under other provisions of the policy. The Court accepted Trisura’s position that it was not appropriate to provide an “advisory opinion” regarding coverage in the absence of the full factual matrix, and in the absence of evidence regarding other available insurance which might respond in place of the Trisura policy.

  • Canam Software Labs Inc. v. Wood, 2017 ONSC 797 -

    In a complex matter involving alleged employee dishonesty, successfully secured a Mareva injunction and Certificate of Pending Litigation on real property within 11 days of being retained, and then obtained an interlocutory injunction whereby a significant sum was ordered to be paid into Court to the credit of the action. 

  • Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Regional Hose Toronto Ltd. (2010), 82 CCLI (4th) 283 (Ont. SCJ) -

    Successfully obtained a declaration of no duty to defend under a CGL policy, relying on jurisprudence establishing that defective manufacture does not constitute an “occurrence” within the meaning of CGL coverage.  Also successfully obtained two procedural rulings, both of assistance to insurers.  First, the Court struck out an affidavit from the insured’s principal purporting to explain the “true facts” relating to the underlying dispute, on the basis that it was not proper evidence on a duty-to-defend application.  Second, the Court rejected the insured’s attempt to rely on its statement of defence in the underlying action to “clarify” the allegations in the statement of claim.

  • Iroquois Falls Community Credit Union Ltd v Co-operators General Insurance Co, 2009 ONCA 364 -

    Co-counsel for the successful appellant fidelity insurers in a major appeal resulting from the collapse of a credit union. The Court of Appeal made significant holdings with respect to the manifest intent and direct loss requirements for coverage; the termination condition; and the unfaithful performance exclusion.

  • Royal Bank v Société Générale (Canada) (2006), 31 BLR (4th) 63 (Ont CA), leave to appeal to SCC ref'd (2007) 377 NR 400n -

    Co-counsel for two of the successful appellant fidelity insurers in an appeal arising from the largest fidelity insurance claim ever litigated in Canada, which also involved significant issues of loss allocation as between banks under the Bills of Exchange Act and the Canadian Payment Association’s Automated Clearing Settlement System Rules and Standards. The Court of Appeal’s decision provided important guidance with respect to summary judgment practice and procedure in Ontario.

  • Hollinger International Inc v American Home Assurance Co (2005), 141 ACWS (3d) 53, add'l reasons at (2006), 34 CCLI (4th) 17 (Ont SCJ) -

    Served as counsel for a D&O insurer in resisting an application for court approval of a settlement arising out of the Hollinger International-Conrad Black dispute.

  • Torchia v Royal Insurance Co of Canada (2004), 71 OR (3d) 511 (Ont CA) -

    Co-counsel for the successful property insurer in upholding summary judgment granted on the basis of an arson defence.



  • Lexpert® Canadian Legal Directory “Leading Lawyer to Watch” in Commercial Insurance Litigation in Canada, 2019
  • Lexpert® Canadian Legal Directory “Leading Lawyer to Watch” in Commercial Insurance Litigation in Canada, 2018
 Speaking  Publications


 In the Media  News  Podcasts  Blogs

Blog Posts



  • Law Society of Ontario
  • The Advocates’ Society
  • Metropolitan Toronto Lawyers Association
  • Canadian Defence Lawyers
  • American Bar Association – Fidelity & Surety Law Committee (Co-Chair, International Section)
  • Professional Liability Underwriting Society


Thank you for your interest in contacting us by email.

Please be aware that contacting us via e-mail does not mean that the firm is acting for the sender of the e-mail. People do not become clients unless and until the firm agrees to act and that representation will be confirmed in a retainer agreement or retainer letter, in accordance with our usual policies. Unless you are an existing client, no information provided in an e-mail will be considered confidential. We ask that you do not send us specific questions on any matter until you receive confirmation that we are able to represent you.