In Natario v. RBC Insurance Company of Canada, 2006 ONCA 263, the Court of Appeal refused to quash an appeal of an order preventing insurers from adding civil fraud defence. The insurers sought to rely on misrepresentations admitted by the insureds over a span of several years to deny coverage and eventually moved in 2025 for leave to amend their statement of defence to include a civil fraud defence.
The motion judge dismissed the insurers’ motion on the basis that issuing leave to amend the pleadings would result in non-compensable prejudice to the insureds.
The Court of Appeal held that the order was final because it deprived the insurers of the ability to advance a distinct substantive defence and that civil fraud was not duplicative of the insurers’ existing policy-based and good faith defences, but rather separate and distinct. The Court of Appeal relies on the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring that affirmative defences be specifically pleaded to avoid surprise at trial.
How Can We Assist you?
Our lawyers have expertise and experience in civil fraud claims and can assist you in resolving your legal issues in a timely and cost-effective manner. Please contact us for an initial consultation through our Request Consultation Form, email to info@gilbertsondavis.com, or by telephone (416) 979-2020.
Brief informational summaries about insurance litigation, commercial litigation and family law litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and Canada are periodically published on our website. Please note that our website content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon to provide legal advice. If you require legal advice, please request an initial consultation with Gilbertson Davis using the Request Consultation Form on this webpage or by contacting our Intake Coordinator on (416) 979-2020, ext. 223 (both subject to the Terms of Use described on our Contact page).
Comments & Opinions by Gilbertson Davis lawyers and staff on its Blog, or in media interviews, appearances or publications, or in professional publications, are personal to them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Firm or anyone at the Firm other than the individual expressing those comments or opinions.
About the Author
