The court considers the scope of the duty to defend in Delcor Enterprises Limited v. The Economical Insurance Group, 2015 MBQB 49, a slip and fall case involving three, separately insured defendants: RBC, owner of the ATM where the fall took place due to ice build-up; Bee-Clean, the company hired by RBC to do snow maintenance; and Lawn Boys, the company sub-contracted by Bee-Clean. In particular, the court considers the scope of the duty to defend where the allegations in the claim create multiple bases for liability and not all are covered by an individual policy. Following the line of authority holding that where a claim includes both covered and non-covered claims the insurer is obliged to defend only those parts of the claim that fall within policy coverage, and emphasising that the pleadings govern the duty to defend, the court found, among other things, that Lawn Boys’ insurer had a duty to defend Bee-Clean in all aspects of the claim; that Bee-Clean’s insurer had a duty to defend RBC, but only in relation to the performance of the service contract and not with respect to RBC’s obligations as an occupier; and that Lawn Boys would be liable to reimburse Bee-Clean for its costs in defending RBC.

The court dismissed SCN’s motion for an interim or interlocutory injunction requiring Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba to stop cutting or clearing within the N4 geographic area and to require them to consult with and to accommodate SCN’s claims concerning the Bipole III corridor in Sapotaweyak Cree Nation et al. v. Manitoba et al., 2015 MBQB 35. Among other things, the court found that Hydro did not have a duty to consult in the Honour of the Crown separate and distinct from that of Manitoba; that Manitoba’s duty to consult was fulfilled; that in any event SNC had not met the second threshold of establishing irreparable harm; and that the balance of convenience was heavily in favour of continuing the construction of Bipole III without interruption.

In Hafichuk-Walkin et al. v. BCE Inc. et al., 2015 MBQB 30, the court considers an issue never previously decided in Manitoba: whether s. 37(1) of The Class Proceedings Act bars the making of an order for costs in a pre-certification motion to dismiss an action. The three defendants, cell phone providers, sought costs on a solicitor-client or tariff basis following their successful motion to stay a 10 year old statement of claim seeking certification of a national class action against them. The court found the claim to be an abuse of process and stayed it unconditionally. The plaintiffs argued costs were prohibited or should not be ordered in class actions. The court found that “the blanket denial of an award of costs (in s.37(1)), but for exceptional circumstances, does not come into play until the filing of the motion for certification” and therefore does not apply in this case. The court also rejected the notion that a cost order in these circumstances would limit or proscribe access to justice. Solicitor-client costs were denied, however, because the plaintiffs’ conduct, while excessive, was not reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous.

By notice dated March 2015, the Supreme Court announced that where the court has granted leave to appeal it will post the memorandums of argument filed by the parties on the application for leave on its website. Where a memorandum of argument contains information that cannot be posted on the Internet counsel must file a redacted electronic version within 30 days of the granting of leave.

The Manitoba Ombudsman has released Privacy Guidelines for Administrative Tribunals on the Online Publication of Decisions. According to a news release issued April 14, 2015 the guidelines are intended to help administrative tribunals, which are increasingly posting their decisions online, to comply with Manitoba’s privacy laws, The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and The Personal Health Information Act (PHIA).

Proposed Amendments to the Court of Queen’s Bench Rules – Court of Queen’s Bench Justices Glenn Joyal and Shane Perlmutter will discuss proposed amendments to the Court of Queen’s Bench Rules at this Civil Litigation section meeting on April 28, 2015, 12 noon to 1:30 pm at the Law Society classroom.' Family Law and the Court of Appeal – A Practice Guide for the Perplexed - The Hon. Madam Justice Freda Steel and Lawrence Pinsky will address questions arising from the intersection of family law and the Court of Appeal at this lunch session on May 19, 2015, from noon to 1:30 pm at the Law Society classroom. April and May are bring a buddy months at the Manitoba Bar Association, so consider inviting a non-member friend to a section meeting.