Harris v. Stennett, 2025 ONSC 5111 (CanLII)
Reading Time: 4 minutes (approx.)
By: Sarah Richard
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled on a dispute between the Plaintiffs, Kaijah and Velma Harris, and Third Party, The Personal Insurance Company. The case arose from a 2016 car accident in which Kaijah Harris, then 20, sustained catastrophic injuries as a passenger. The vehicle was driven by an intoxicated Lerrell Stennett, owned by Jouvaine Stennett, and insured by The Personal.
The Personal denied coverage to both Stennetts on the grounds of material misrepresentation and non-cooperation, reducing its potential liability from $1,000,000 to $200,000. The Plaintiffs challenged this denial and sought disclosure of the factual basis behind it. The Personal refused to answer questions during discovery, arguing the coverage issue was irrelevant to the main action and protected by privilege.
Justice de Sa rejected the arguments from the Third Party, ruling that while coverage issues are separate from liability, they are still relevant, especially when the amount of recovery depends on whether full coverage applies. He held that Rule 31.06(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure entitles plaintiffs to discovery of insurance policy details and the conditions affecting coverage.
Citing appellate authority including Maccaroni v. Kelly and other relevant decisions, Justice de Sa concluded that plaintiffs are entitled to access the factual underpinnings of an insurer’s denial of coverage. This right is not curtailed by the fact that some of the relevant documents may be privileged, as plaintiffs are entitled at least to the facts, even if not to the documents themselves. The Court noted that resolving the issue of coverage at this stage was necessary to avoid unnecessary costs and delay, especially since it was now the only major issue remaining in the case.
Accordingly, The Personal was ordered to answer all outstanding undertakings and refusals within 30 days of the decision’s release. If the insurer believed certain answers would prejudice the defence or involved privileged material, it could provide those answers under seal for the court to determine their status. The Court declined to order further in-person discovery of The Personal’s representative, allowing any follow-up to be conducted in writing instead.
Justice de Sa also awarded the Plaintiffs $5,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 30 days.
The decision underscores that statutory third-party insurers cannot shield the basis of a coverage denial from discovery under the guise of irrelevance or privilege where such information is fundamental to the Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue their claims.
