Justice Cronk agreed with the motion judge’s conclusion.
On her reading of the endorsement at issue in Craig, the ordinary language of the provision was enough to defeat the insurance company’s attempt to avoid liability.
 The same holds true here. When the words “the total of
all limits of motor vehicle liability insurance, or bonds, or cash
deposits, or other financial guarantee as required by law in lieu
of insurance, of the inadequately insured motorist” in s. 4 are
given their ordinary meaning in context, it is clear that they
refer to the funds available to the claimant bringing the claim.
 Refuge from liability for the shortfall in coverage under
Minnesota’s Tort Claims Act cannot therefore be found in the
insurer’s maximum liability.
 Minnesota is an “inadequately insured motorist”. This is
so despite the fact that it was self-insured, and despite the existence of partial statutory immunity limiting the amount of damages it must pay. The “financial guarantee as required by law in
lieu of insurance” available from Minnesota is inadequate
to cover the damages that Mr. Hartley is “legally entitled to
recover”. The motion judge was therefore correct in finding Minnesota to be an “inadequately insured motorist”.
C. Did the Motion Judge Err in Permitting Mr. Hartley to
Claim his U.S. Fees?
 Mr. Hartley incurred U.S. fees in recovering his damage
settlement from Minnesota, which reduced the net amount he
received to approximately CAD$387,000. Mr. Hartley sought
recovery of the U.S. fees before the motion judge, invoking two
 The first route would permit Security National, when
calculating the shortfall payable to Mr. Hartley under OPCF
44R, to deduct only the net amount that Mr. Hartley ultimately
received from the settlement after deducting the amount he paid
to his Minnesota lawyer. In support of this approach, Mr. Hartley relied on Anand v. Belanger,  O.J. No. 4064, 2010
ONSC 5356, 90 C.C.L.I. (4th) 138 (S.C.J.), a broadly analogous
disability insurance case where this was done.
 The second route would initially permit Security National
to deduct the entire gross amount available through the inadequately insured motorist coverage in quantifying the shortfall,
but then to permit Mr. Hartley to claim the U.S. fees as special
damages in the action against Security National. This approach
was implicitly suggested in Green v. State Farm Mutual