Jason P. Mangano

P: 416-596-2896
Email    PDF    VCard
  • Called to the Bar of Ontario, 2006
  • J.D., Osgoode Hall Law School
  • B.I.B., (Honours), Carleton University
Jason Mangano Photo ©2021 Blaney McMurtry LLP

Jason Mangano specializes in complex litigation with a focus on contractual disputes in the areas of insurance coverage and construction.   His representative work spans a broad range of areas of law including insurance coverage, class action work, construction defect claims, condominium law, as well as various commercial disputes.  Jason has successfully acted as lead counsel in several complex matters before various courts in the country including the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, as well as certain Courts of King’s Bench in various Canadian provinces. Clients appreciate Jason’s ability to quickly get to the heart of their matter and provide a pragmatic, effective solution. Jason's insurance coverage practice encompasses courtroom application and opinion work in respect of all types of first party and third-party liability policies. He also has extensive experience with P3 wrap-up, directors and officers, commercial general liability, business interruption, errors and omissions and cyber insurance policies.

  • J.D., Osgoode Hall Law School
  • B.I.B., (Honours), Carleton University
 Practice Areas  Called to the Bar
  • Called to the Bar of Ontario, 2006
 Assistant  Experience
  • Integrated Team Solutions PCH Partnership, LED (ITS) PCH Inc. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Inc., 2024 ONSC 3791 -

    (holding Ontario has jurisdiction simpliciter and was forum conveniens over foreign defendant that subject to various negligence claims advanced by multiple parties in context of construction dispute)  - View decision here.

  • Greenwin Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 2023 ONSC 5097 -

    (coverage dispute regarding among other things the approval of settlement, reasonableness of settlement, anti-subrogation bar and the application of the owned property exclusion to additional insureds) - View decision here.

  • The Estate of Pierre Wüst v Novex Insurance Company, 2023 NBKB 062 -

    (holding insurer does not have duty to defend proposed class actions alleging voyeurism under Miscellaneous Malpractice Liability and Commercial General Liability policies) - View Decision here.

  • Dana Canada Corporation v. XL Specialty Insurance Company et al., 2022 ONSC 4214 -

    (coverage dispute regarding number of occurrences, property damage, number of policies triggered) - View decision here.

  • Cottage Advisors of Canada Inc. v. Prince Edward Vacant Land Condominium Corporation No. 10, 2021 ONSC 1203 upheld on appeal 2022 ONCA 107 (condominium director oppression application & appeal) -

    Successfully represented a condominium in a claim of oppression. Appeal Decision here. Lower Court Decision here.

  • Cottage Advisors of Canada Inc. v. Prince Edward Vacant Land Condominium Corporation No. 10, 2021 ONSC 1203 (condominium director oppression application) -

    Successfully represented a condominium in a claim of oppression. View Decision here.

  • Rizzi v. Handa, 2021 ONSC 1004, (health law class action resolution) -

    View Decision here.

  • Cottage Advisors of Canada v Prince Edward Vacant Land et. al., 2020 ONSC 6445 -

    Successfully represented directors of a condominium in striking out a claim of oppression, interference with contractual relations, and defamation, without leave to amend.  View Decision here.

  • Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Intact Insurance Company, 2018 ONSC 6527 (Ont. SCJ) (applicability of an excluded driver endorsement in an automobile insurance policy) -

    View Decision here.

  • Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2123 v. Times Group Corporation et. al, 2018 ONSC 4799 (Ont. SCJ) (successful brought Rule 21 motion on behalf of directors and officers dismissing 6 of 6 claims against directors and officers, five of the claims were struck without leave to amend). A Notice of Appeal has been served. -

    View Decision here.

  • 1680960 Ontario Inc. v. Print Three Franchising Corporation, 2018 ONSC 1192 (Ont. SCJ) (successful dismissal of summary judgment motion seeking the rescission of a franchise agreement). -

    View Decision here.

  • Royal Sun & Alliance v. Intact Insurance Company, Diane Wilson, Rita MacLeod and Cathy MacLeod, 2016 ONSC 5856 (Ont. SCJ) (successfully argued the applicability of 28A endorsement of an automobile policy) affirmed by Court of Appeal in 2017 ONCA 381 (successful resistance of the appeal) -

    View Decision here.

  • Intact Insurance Company v Quantus Holdings Inc (April 21, 2015), CV-14-511927 (Ont Sup Ct J) -

    (successfully acted for insurer upholding a forfeiture of coverage position on account of non-cooperation) 

  • Forsythe v Westfall, 2015 ONSC 758 aff'd 2015 ONCA 810 -

    (successfully acted for insurer before a five judge panel of the Court of Appeal on matters pertaining to tort and contract jurisdiction) - View Decision here.

  • Intact Insurance Co v Virdi, 2014 ONSC 2322 -

    (successfully defence of a court challenge of a CGL policy denial based on the insured’s described business operations) - View Decision here.

  • MacKay v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp No 985, 2014 ONSC 2863 -

    (successfully defended a condominium and its directors from an action arising from the migration of smoke between units) - View Decision here.

  • Georgian Downs Ltd v State Farm Fire and Casualty Co, 2013 ONSC 2110 -

    (successfully argued limitation period had not expired in insurance coverage litigation pertaining in part to additional insured coverage) - View Decision here.

  • Liardi v Riotrin Properties (Kingston) Inc., 2013 ONSC 7544 -

    (successfully brought summary judgment motion on behalf of insurer and insured for additional insured coverage) - View Decision here.

  • 1088437 Ontario Inc. cob as Northmore Fuels v. GCAN Insurance Company, 2013 ONSC 7346 -

    (insurance coverage application in connection with pollution liability policy) - View Decision here.

  • 699982 Ontario Ltd v Intact Insurance Co, 9 CCLI (5th) 325 aff'd 2012 ONCA 268 -

    (successfully defended insurer at first instance and before the Court of Appeal in coverage litigation based on the applicability of pollution exclusion) - View Decision here.

  • Intact Insurance Company v Crazy Fingers Blues Café (April 25, 2012), 10-0980 (Ont Sup Ct J) -

    10-0980 (Ont Sup Ct J) (successfully brought application for insurer denying coverage based on the abuse exclusion)

  • Wallace v J Rivington Associates Inc, 2011 ONSC 4481 -

    (successfully acted for home inspector in real estate litigation arising out of a Release) - View Decision here.

  • Chodowski v Huntsville Professional Building Inc, 2010 ONSC 4897 -

    (acted on behalf of a landlord in connection with a limitation period matter) - View Decision here.



  • Ranked as a leading litigation lawyer in the 2023 Lexpert Special Edition – Canada’s Leading Litigation Lawyers
  • Recognized by Best Lawyers® in Canada 2024 in the area of Corporate and Commercial Litigation
  • Recognized in Lexpert® Canadian Legal Directory as a Leading Practitioner (Repeatedly Recommended) in Commercial Insurance Litigation
  • Lexpert® Canadian Legal Directory's 'Leading Lawyer to Watch' in Toronto, Commercial Insurance Litigation (2017)
  • Listed in Expert Guides' Guide to the World's Leading Insurance & Reinsurance Lawyers
 Speaking  Publications
 In the Media  News


  • Law Society of Ontario
  • Canadian Defence Lawyers Association
  • Ontario Bar Association
  • Defense Research Institute Inc. (Insurance Law Committee Member and Vice-Liaison of the Young Lawyers International Law Committee)

2024 Lexpert Ranked Lawyer


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.