02.11.2014 Views

in the supreme court of british columbia - Clark Wilson LLP

in the supreme court of british columbia - Clark Wilson LLP

in the supreme court of british columbia - Clark Wilson LLP

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

British Columbia Medical Association v. Aviva Insurance<br />

Company <strong>of</strong> Canada Page 28<br />

The Applicant is permitted to conduct his own defence to this action with legal<br />

counsel <strong>of</strong> his choos<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>the</strong> Co-Operators is responsible for pay<strong>in</strong>g all<br />

fees <strong>of</strong> such counsel on a solicitor/client basis and disbursements <strong>in</strong>curred to<br />

date toge<strong>the</strong>r with all future fees and disbursements at <strong>the</strong> hourly rate<br />

normally charged by such legal counsel. Counsel chosen by <strong>the</strong> Applicant is<br />

not required to report to <strong>the</strong> Co-Operators with respect to any matters bear<strong>in</strong>g<br />

on <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> liability.<br />

[83] In my view, <strong>the</strong> relief granted <strong>in</strong> Morrison is appropriate for <strong>the</strong> circumstances<br />

<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> present case. Here, unlike Cansulex, <strong>the</strong> coverage dispute is be<strong>in</strong>g resolved <strong>in</strong><br />

advance <strong>of</strong> settlement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Underly<strong>in</strong>g Claim. Here, as <strong>in</strong> both Morrison and<br />

Encon, <strong>the</strong>re is a conflict that necessitates <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>sured be<strong>in</strong>g granted conduct <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

defence. However, unlike <strong>the</strong> situation <strong>in</strong> Encon, <strong>the</strong>re is no evidence <strong>of</strong> concern<br />

with respect to settlement; ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> concern is with respect to conflict go<strong>in</strong>g to<br />

liability.<br />

2011 BCSC 1399 (CanLII)<br />

Disposition<br />

[84] In <strong>the</strong> result I grant <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g relief:<br />

(a)<br />

(b)<br />

(c)<br />

<strong>the</strong> application <strong>of</strong> Aviva is dismissed;<br />

a declaration that Aviva is, and at all material times has been, under an<br />

obligation to pay for <strong>the</strong> defence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> BCMA and Individuals aga<strong>in</strong>st<br />

<strong>the</strong> claims brought aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong>m by Carol<strong>in</strong>e Wang as set out <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

Statement <strong>of</strong> Claim filed August 7, 2009 <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court <strong>of</strong><br />

British Columbia, Vancouver Registry Action No, 509577, and as set<br />

out <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Consolidated Notice <strong>of</strong> Civil Claim filed September 27, 2010<br />

<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Wang Action;<br />

BCMA and <strong>the</strong> Individuals are permitted to conduct <strong>the</strong> defence to this<br />

action with legal counsel <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir choos<strong>in</strong>g and Aviva is responsible for<br />

pay<strong>in</strong>g all fees <strong>of</strong> such counsel on a solicitor/client basis and<br />

disbursements <strong>in</strong>curred to date toge<strong>the</strong>r with all future fees and<br />

disbursements at <strong>the</strong> hourly rate normally charged by such legal<br />

counsel. Counsel chosen by BCMA and <strong>the</strong> Individuals is not required

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!