The Supreme Court of Canada rejected a request for authorization to appeal to a decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. This refusal thus confirms that Marsh Canada Ltée will only have to pay $ 77,000, rather than $ 1.5 million (M $) initially granted. The Appeal Court had concluded that no fiduciary relationships existed between the brokers involved in the insurance of insurance for Manitobaine companies in the pig sector.
In this case, the plaintiff, Prairie Risk Management (PRM), doing business under the name of Prairie Insurance Group, alleged that Marsh Canada had illegally accessed confidential information on his customers in order to request these same customers after the end of the relationship between PRM and Marsh.
In order to serve its customers well, William (Bill) Duthoitthen owner of PRM, collected detailed information on the operations, buildings and other infrastructures of each of his insured. He compiled this data in a declaration of values allowing his broker (first Aonthen Marsh Canada) to obtain the necessary protections. This information was updated each year.
Notable fact: no written contract governed the relationship between PRM and Marsh.
When Duthoit decided to do without the services of Marsh to deal directly with his broker at the Lloyd’s, Kevin McCrediepresident of the agricultural sector at Marsh invited him to supper in the hope of convincing him to stay. Duthoit, for his part, believed that the meeting was to discuss a possible purchase of his cabinet by Marsh.
Creation of a secret group to recruit customers
“Duthoit was worried about the consequences of the RMA program (Risk Management Alliance) on its smallest customers, due to a higher franchise, ”reads the judgment. After supper, he sent an email to ask questions about franchises and compensation limits. This message remained unanswered. Meanwhile, Marsh has set up a working group responsible for recruiting the customers of PRM-without the knowledge of Brian Tasconathe representative of Marsh assigned to Duthoit.
When the latter learned that other March employees were trying to capture PRM’s customers, “he was stunned,” notes the decision of the Court of the Bench of the King of Manitoba. Mr. Tascona “testified that the insurance industry is based on” the greatest good faith, a level of integrity and ethics in the relationship with the customer, and I simply could not believe that Marsh acted as well, by bypassing everything, I mean. ” »»
Marsh’s procedures finally allowed the company to recover 45 % of the PRM portfolio, which had an impact on the sale price of the firm when it was acquired by BFL Canada Insurance services (BFL). An analysis presented at the trial, but rejected by the Court of Appeal, estimated that this loss of customers had reduced the sale value of $ 917,525.
The initial judgment, which imposed a penalty of $ 1.5 million, was based on a report produced by Grant Thornton on behalf of PRM. The judge had dismissed a competing evaluation prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers For Marsh. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this conclusion and rather retained the amount recommended by the PWC report.
“The trial judge made an error by concluding that a trustee relationship existed between Marsh and the plaintiff,” said the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
“Even if he did not make a reversible error by determining that Marsh had misused confidential PRM information, the damage granted greatly exceeded the losses actually caused by this faulty driving. »»
The granting of lawyers on the customer lawyer was also canceled in the decision rendered in January 2025 by the Manitoba Court of Appeal.
On August 14, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the request for authorization to appeal by PRM, with costs.