Insurance Law | Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP card reading "No Coverage Until a Request Is Made", with a portrait of partner Chris Morrison.

No Coverage Until a Request Is Made: The Court of Appeal on Fleet Policies and OPCF 21A

Chris Morrison July 30, 2026

A leased Honda Civic was in an accident in August 2020. It first appeared on a monthly fleet report a month later, and had been leased since 2017 without ever making the schedule of automobiles. In 2026 ONCA 553, the Court of Appeal held that OPCF 21A (c) means what its capital letters say: no coverage until a request for coverage is filed, and no coverage backdated to policy inception. Chris Morrison and Kathleen Lefebvre were counsel for the successful appellant.

Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP title card reading "Ottawa Floods and Construction Defects," with a photo of partner Peter Reinitzer.

After the Deluge: When Ottawa Basement Flooding Points to Construction Deficiencies

Peter Reinitzer July 14, 2026

The historic Canada Day 2026 storm left thousands of Ottawa homeowners tearing out drywall and replacing ruined furnaces. But an extraordinary weather event does not absolve builders and engineers of liability: where one home floods while its neighbours stay dry, the real cause may be a hidden construction defect, and that opens a very different path to recovery, if you act before the limitation clock runs out.

Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP case comment card reading "Kamlu Engineering v 2502301 Ontario Inc" with the subtitle "A board-less corporation lacks the capacity to sue", from dcmlaw.ca.

Kamlu v 2502301 Ontario Inc: Why a Board-Less Corporation Cannot Litigate

Peter Reinitzer June 23, 2026

In Kamlu v 2502301 Ontario Inc, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed an action as a nullity after the defence discovered the plaintiff corporation had operated for years with no valid board of directors, its sole directing mind an undischarged bankrupt. Justice Chiappetta held that an officer’s authority cannot outlive the board, and that a trustee’s silence is not ratification. A cautionary tale on corporate governance and the capacity to litigate.

Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP title card reading "Slatkovsky v Machado", with the line "A non-delegable permit duty and a dual agent's duty to disclose". Case comment, civil litigation, from dcmlaw.ca.

Unpermitted Renovations and Dual Agency: Key Takeaways from Slatkovsky v Machado

Peter Reinitzer June 19, 2026

A Puslinch century farmhouse looked beautifully renovated. The structural work had no building permit, and no one disclosed it. In Slatkovsky v Machado, the Ontario Superior Court held both the vendors and their double-ending agent liable, awarding the buyers $150,318 and confirming that the owner’s permit duty cannot be passed off to a contractor.

Legal case banner on dark blue background: firm name on the left, case comment label on the right, large title Chippewas v Sexton’s Mechanical Limited with subtitle about builder’s risk and subrogation

The Contract Strikes Back: How a Breach of Builder’s Risk Obligations Defeated a Subrogated Claim

Joel Cormier June 12, 2026

A subrogating insurer steps into its insured’s shoes, and inherits its insured’s contractual breaches along the way. In Chippewas v Sexton’s Mechanical Limited, the owner cancelled the required builder’s risk policy before occupancy and before the loss. On summary judgment, the subrogated claim was dismissed. A cautionary read for insurers and contractors alike.

No Damages Awarded for “The Building that Blew Up”: $16 Million Damages Claim Dismissed After 13-Years of Litigation

Margaret Klassen November 10, 2025

Liability for the 2010 laundry-room gas explosion was admitted, so the only question at trial was damages, and the plaintiffs sought more than $16 million. After a four-week trial and nearly 13 years of litigation, Justice Schabas of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the action entirely, finding the plaintiffs had not proven the explosion caused their claimed losses. Christopher Morrison and Margaret Klassen acted for the fourth parties.

Flooded Again? Why Your Insurance Denial Might Be a Clue to a Deeper Problem

Peter Reinitzer October 28, 2025

A property owner suffers a devastating flood, makes the panicked call to their insurer, and is told the policy does not cover “overland flooding,” or that the sewer-backup limit falls far short of the repair bill. For many that is the end of the road. But a denial can be a clue that the real problem is not the rain at all, but a construction defect in how the home was built, and that opens a very different path to recovery.

Feeling the Heat: A Homeowner’s Guide to Challenging an Insurer After a Fire

Peter Reinitzer September 23, 2025

Home insurance premiums are climbing across Ontario, hitting cottage-country communities like Huntsville especially hard, as extreme weather and wildfire risk reshape the insurance landscape. The Insurance Bureau of Canada reported over $8 billion in catastrophic losses in 2024. For homeowners facing a denied or underpaid fire claim, this is a guide to scrutinizing the denial and pushing back.

Significant Differences In Title Insurance Policy Wording a Potential Cause for Concern for Lawyers

David Morin August 7, 2025

Ontario has four licensed title insurers, and unlike in the United States, no regulator standardizes what their policies say. Having acted for homeowners insured by each of them, the firm’s insurance litigation group has seen how a difference of two or three words can decide a future claim. The harder question is for the lawyers selling these policies at closing: on what basis is that choice being made?

Is Your Lawyer Acting as an Unlicensed Insurance Agent?

David Morin April 21, 2025

When a real estate lawyer orders a title insurance policy for a client, are they quietly stepping into the role of an insurance agent? Read against the Insurance Act’s definition of “agent” and the fact that lawyers are not members of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario, the question is sharper than it looks, and it is one reason a homeowner should not rely on the lawyer who sold the policy to tell them whether they have a claim under it.