I. INSURANCE ISSUES
A. Where an insurer has failed to afford a defence to its insured and the insured is successful in bringing proceedings to enforce the insurer’s obligations, the court can and will award the insured a complete indemnity for both defence expenses already incurred and the expense of enforcing compliance with the policy terms
Williams v. Canales, 2016 BCSC 1811 per Blok, J. 
I. FACTS AND ISSUES
The plaintiff Williams brought a lawsuit for injuries she alleged she suffered during the course of training at the Amazing Personal Training Studio Ltd. (ATP) gym. Weltman was the principal of APT, while Arbutus Village Holdings Ltd. was the owner of the premises. ATP, Weltman and Arbutus Village (the Insureds) were all insured under the policy at issue. The other third parties in the proceedings, and Martin John Goodger (the Brokers) were the insurance broker and agent respectively.
When Williams brought her action, the insurer Intact, denied coverage, relying on an exclusion in the policy. The Insureds brought third party proceedings against Intact and the broker Vancouver Holdings (BC) Ltd. and the agent Goodger and sought summary judgment against Intact. They did not seek that remedy against the broker and agent. The broker and agent supported the position of the Insureds. Justice Blok granted judgment in favor of the Insureds, declaring that Intact was obligated to defend the Insureds in the personal injury action and requiring Intact to reimburse the Insureds for defence costs already incurred. The Insureds then brought an action against Intact seeking special costs. The broker and agent sought party and party costs against Intact by way of a Sanderson order.
The issue was as to whether or not the Insureds and/or the agent and broker should be awarded special costs from Intact.
II. HELD: Special costs awarded to the Insureds and party and party costs awarded to the broker and agent
The judge in this case cited appellate level decisions from Ontario, while the Insureds also presented appellate level decisions from New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and a trial level case from Manitoba. The Court in BC rendered a decision that fell in line with the other decisions across the country, which should serve as a potential warning to all insurers and Insureds in Alberta.
Though this decision is out of province, it shows that the consensus across the country is that insurers can and will be held responsible for special costs towards Insureds that they incorrectly deny coverage to. This puts more pressure on insurers to ensure the initial decision to deny coverage is correct.