An application for leave to appeal a judgement of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba has been dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada, leaving Marsh Canada Ltd. to pay $77,000, down from $1.5-million, after the appeals court judge found no fiduciary relationship existed between brokers arranging insurance for Manitoba businesses in the pork industry.
The plaintiff in the case, Prairie Risk Management Inc. (carrying on business as Prairie Insurance Group), alleged that Marsh Canada unlawfully accessed and used confidential information about its clients in order to solicit those clients when Prairie Risk Management (PRM) discontinued its relationship with Marsh.
To serve his clients, William (Bill) Duthoit, who owned PRM at the time, obtained detailed information from each regarding the nature of their operations, buildings and other infrastructure, assembling this into a statement of value that would enable PRM’s broker (AON initially, and later Marsh Canada) to acquire insurance. The information was updated annually.
Notably, the relationship between PRM and Marsh was not in writing.
When Duthoit decided that he did not need Marsh’s services, instead preferring to deal with his Lloyd’s broker directly, Marsh’s chairman of agricultural practice took Duthoit to dinner in the hope of convincing the broker to stay with Marsh. Duthoit, meanwhile, was under the impression that the company wanted to talk about Marsh purchasing the firm.
Working group formed to recruit clients
“Duthoit had concerns about how the RMA (Risk Management Alliance Inc.) program would impact his smaller clients because of a higher deductible,” the case states. Following the dinner, Duthoit emailed to ask about deductibles and loss limits. The email was ignored and Marsh formed a working group to recruit PRM’s clients. The working group reportedly was a secret even from Marsh’s own representative assigned to serve Duthoit, Brian Tascona.
“When he learned that others within Marsh were going after PRM clients, he [Tascona] was thunderstruck,” the decision from the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba states. “He testified that Marsh’s insurance business required “the utmost good faith and there’s a level of integrity and ethics that go into play with dealing with a client and I just couldn’t believe that Marsh had done that, doing the end run, I mean”.”
Marsh’s efforts ultimately resulted in the broker acquiring 45 per cent of PRM’s business, affecting the purchase price of the firm when it was later acquired by BFL Canada Insurance Services Inc. (BFL). According to analysis considered by the trial judge but rejected by the appeals court judge, the business sold for $917,525 less as a result of the lost clients.
In deciding on the $1.5-million penalty, the trial judge relied on reports from Grant Thornton, provided by PRM, and dismissed a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers provided by Marsh. The appeals court judge reversed that decision, awarding the penalty recommended in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report instead.
“The trial judge erred in finding that a fiduciary relationship existed between Marsh and the plaintiff,” that decision states. “While he made no reversible error in finding that Marsh misused PRM’s confidential information, he awarded damages well in excess of the loss that flowed from Marsh’s wrongful conduct.” The award of solicitor and client costs were also set aside in the January 2025 decision. In August 2025 the leave for appeal application filed by PRM was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada with costs.
