On January 30, 2023, the Court of Appeal of Quebec rendered a decision in Commission scolaire De La Jonquière c. Intact Compagnie d’assurance.1 The key issues in this case are the potential for conflicts arising from liability insurance policies and the obligation to disclose documents where insurers’ duty to defend conflicts with their duty to indemnify insureds. The facts This case is part of a class action in which all Quebec school boards—now referred to as school service centres (SSCs)—were accused of violating the right to free elementary and secondary education. As part of this class action, the SSCs brought an action in warranty against their insurers, seeking compensation for any amount they may be required to pay. The insurers acknowledged their obligation to defend the appellants in the main proceedings; however, they argued that the claim was not covered by the insurance contract. Following negotiations, the parties to the class action reached a settlement. The action in warranty against the insurers is still pending. At the examination for discovery stage of the action in warranty, the insurers asked to obtain a copy of all communications exchanged between the appellants and their counsel since the beginning of the main proceedings. The SSCs objected to this request on the basis of professional secrecy and litigation privilege. The Court therefore had to rule on the merits of the objection. The trial Drawing on the decision in Domtar2, the Superior Court dismissed the SSCs’ objection, holding that they had waived their right to assert solicitor-client privilege regarding anything relating to the reasonableness of the settlement. It appears that the Court inferred this waiver from certain allegations made and from the disclosure of certain documents as part of the action in warranty. The Court concluded that the appellants had to provide the insurers with the documents, risk analyses, letters, exchanges with the appellants and expert opinions having related to the reasonableness of the settlement since the beginning of the main proceedings. However, according to the Court of Appeal, the Court failed to provide a framework for such disclosure of information and to grant the SSCs the right to raise new objections in relation to said documents. The appeal The Court of Appeal considered the conflicts that may arise from the dual responsibility of insurers: their duty to defend insureds and their duty to indemnify them. In this regard, it described liability insurers and their role as follows:  The liability insurer is effectively a two-headed hydra: A type of two-headed creature with a single corporate identity, but where one head handles the insured’s defence and the other protects the insurer’s financial interests by ensuring that it only pays out for covered losses. Each head must base its decisions on the interest it is defending and the information available to it. The two heads must remain separate in order to give effect to the insurance contract. […] The risk of a conflict of interest is therefore very real, which is why the insurer must put measures in place to ensure that it complies with the coverage provided by the policy, while also ensuring the full and complete defence of the insured.] As for the ethical obligations of the lawyer mandated by the insurer to represent the insured, the Court stated that the lawyer becomes the insured’s counsel in all respects and owes the insured absolute loyalty. As such, the right to professional secrecy in the insured’s relationship with the lawyer can be set up against the insurer. That being said, the lawyer must report on the progress of the case to the head of the hydra handling the insured’s defence. The Court then stated that it was essential in this context that the information thus obtained be accessible only to that head, and that the insurer put in place the necessary measures to keep the two heads separate. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in concluding that the SSCs were required to provide the evidence necessary to examine the reasonableness of the settlement reached with the insurers. However, in order to do so, an exemption mechanism could be implemented, giving the SSCs the possibility to object to the disclosure of certain information. The Court also confirmed that there was no basis for concluding that the appellants had waived solicitor-client or litigation privilege with respect to all of their exchanges with their counsel. This information must remain protected by professional secrecy and therefore cannot be disclosed to the person at the insurer’s office in charge of the compensation file. The same goes for the accounts for fees, reports, opinions and other documents sent to the person at the insurer’s office handling the defence, unless the insured waives this right. Conclusion This case highlights the conflicts that can arise from the duality of insurers’ responsibilities and the distinction between insurers’ obligation to defend insureds and their obligation to indemnify them. Although the Court ruled that evidence aimed at verifying the reasonableness of a settlement from a qualitative and quantitative standpoint should be disclosed, it concluded that certain information and documents that are strictly relevant to insureds’ defence need not be disclosed. In so doing, it reiterated insurers’ dual responsibility and the importance of keeping the two heads separate when an insurer agrees to take on an insured’s defence, but maintained its refusal to indemnify the insured. Commission scolaire De La Jonquière c. Intact Compagnie d’assurance, 2023 QCCA 124. Chubb Insurance company of Canada c. Domtar, 2017 QCCA 1004.
Sophie Crevier Lawyer
- Québec, 2023
Sophie Crevier is member of the Litigation and Conflict Resolution group and practices primarily in the areas of civil and commercial litigation.
She joined Lavery in 2021 as a student and completed her articling at the firm in August 2023. Sophie also holds a degree in Cognitive Sciences with a minor in Computer Sciences from McGill University.
During her studies, Sophie worked as a research assistant at the Cyberjustice Laboratory at Université de Montréal. She had the chance to contribute to projects which aimed to promote the access to justice using technological tools.
- LL.B., Université de Montréal, 2022
- B.A.& B.Sc., McGill University, 2019
Boards and Professional Affiliations
- Law and Technology Committee, Université de Montréal, 2019-2022, Vice President of Events and President
Quebec City office William Bolduc William will be joining the administrative law team at Lavery’s Quebec City office in September 2023. Although he is an administrative law generalist, most of his mandates involve municipal law. William also has a keen interest in constitutional law. “Municipal law is exciting, but highly complex due to its legislative corpus. During my internship, Lavery’s administrative law team gave me consistent support and guidance as a junior professional. I am proud to have an opportunity to join this dynamic team and to bring the benefits of my own experience.” Marianne Duboy Marianne Duboy specializes in civil and commercial litigation and construction law. She joined the Lavery team as a student back in 2021. She completed her bachelor of law degree at Laval University. During her studies, Marianne was involved as a volunteer researcher at Laval University’s Legal Information Office. She also served as a research assistant for Prof. Daniel Gardner. “I decided to begin my career at Lavery because of the team with which I developed and grew over the past two years. That gave me an opportunity to exceed in personal as well as professional terms.” Émilie Grignon Émilie is a member of our Business Law group. She joined the Lavery team as a student back in 2021. “I decided to join Lavery after the team welcomed me with such open arms. This allowed me to develop both personally and professionally by giving me greater autonomy, as well as the chance to pursue excellence as a jurist.” Montreal office : Sophie Crevier Sophie Crevier is member of the Litigation and Conflict Resolution group and practices primarily in the areas of civil and commercial litigation. During her studies, she worked as a research assistant at the University of Montreal’s Cyberjustice Laboratory, where she contributed to the development of projects designed to promote access to justice using high-tech tools. “For me, Lavery offers a welcoming environment, where the focus is on collaboration and where our colleagues and mentors care deeply about our professional success. It’s no surprise that I would want to begin my legal career there.” Renaud G. Murphy Renaud is a member of our Business Law group and mainly practices in the area of financing, particularly venture capital and equity financing. Prior to his legal training, Renaud completed a bachelor’s degree in business administration. He has more than 10 years of sales experience, primarily in the telecommunications sector. “As soon as I was hired at Lavery, I was granted trust. I am pleased to be starting out as a lawyer in an environment that fosters autonomy, rigour and the pursuit of excellence.” Jennifer Younes Jennifer joins our Litigation and Conflict Resolution group. " Choosing Lavery was for me a way of choosing a team that would support me, while ensuring that I had access to the resources I needed to develop professionally. So I continue my journey at Lavery, now as a lawyer, with the certainty of being surrounded by dedicated mentors fostering a stimulating, collaborative and collegial work environment." Sherbrooke office: Arianne Arguin Arianne is member of our Business Law group. She primarily practices in the areas of transactional law and commercial law, where she supports our partners and experienced members working primarily on cases involving commercial transactions, such as corporate restructurings and business sales/acquisitions. She also works on cases involving the incorporation of the legal practice involving various professionals. Prior to joining the firm, she honed her legal knowledge and skills in the legal department of the public health and social services network. “As soon as I started at Lavery, I realized that collaboration is a core value of the firm. As a member of the Lavery team, I have the opportunity to develop my skills each day by working closely with a range of professionals who pool their strengths and expertise to offer an unparalleled level of service to each client.” Marianne Fortier Marianne is member of our Litigation and Conflict Resolution group. “At Lavery, I am spoiled insofar as I can rub shoulders with experienced legal professionals who are so generous with their time and experience. The team members’ approach is very humane and collaborative. When I began working for the firm, I was involved in a variety of mandates before I knew it. That gave me a chance to develop my professional skills.” Marie-Pier Landry Marie-Pier Landry is member of the Litigation and Conflict Resolution group. She joined the Lavery team as a student back in 2021. “I am delighted to be joining a team characterized by its excellence, sense of daring and entrepreneurship. I am convinced that Lavery will enable me to thrive professionally. I am looking forward to contributing to the firm’s success!”