416.860.0001

On December 23, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Kusnierz v. Economical, 2011 ONCA 823 dealing with the issue of whether a trier of fact is to combine physical and psychological impairment when determining whether a person is “catastrophically impaired” as it relates to "impairment of the whole person" under section 2(1.1)(f) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).   Read the full case summary... | Read the Court Decision...

What happens when an at-fault party has no insurance or may be inadequately insured. Or where an unidentified motorist is at-fault (as in the case of a hit-and-run) there may be no practical means of securing compensation for an injury as the at-fault party and his insurer may never be identified...  The system in Ontario has two mechanisms for dealing with such scenarios.

Black's Law Dictionary defines the collateral source-rule, also known as the collateral benefits rule, as “the doctrine that if an injured party receives compensation for the injuries from a source independent of the tortfeasor, the payment should not be deducted from the damages that the tortfeasor must pay.”1 Over time, this rule has evolved to allow tortfeasors and/or their insurers to deduct certain amounts already received by the plaintiff in order to ensure that the plaintiff does not receive double recovery.

In a personal injury action, the defence medical examination (“DME”) is the most potent tool that a defendant has to test and respond to a plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff counsel have increasingly been requesting, and receiving, court orders that DMEs be videotaped. This has naturally caused concern among defence counsel.

We have chosen a few key topics that have been repeating themselves in conversations with our clients, adjusters, claims handlers and risk managers over the course of the past year. In the absence of any defining or guiding arbitral or court decisions arising from the 2010 Regulations, it has been an opportunity to think creatively with clients whether discussing what is needed to prove economic loss, or the effect of changes to loss transfer regulations. Following are some thoughts distilled from the past year.

Since 2010, the Beasley case has been considered and distinguished by further caselaw, including the cases of Grigoroff v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. 1 and McNeill v. Filthaut 2.  Those cases provide alternate means by which a defendant can rely on the evidence of doctors retained by the no-fault insurers. 

In May the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal in Primmum Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company.1 doing so it left standing the Ontario Court of Appeal decision confirming that the loss transfer provisions of the Ontario's Insurance Act will apply to all insurers, who are licensed to sell insurance in Ontario, regardless of where the policy was issued.

**Please note that the appeal of this decision is scheduled to be heard on November 16, 2011**

On October 19, 2010, the Honourable Justice Lauwers released his decision in the case of Kusnierz v. The Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2010 ONSC 5749, addressing the definition of "catastrophic injury". In particular, the Honourable Justice Lauwers was asked to determine whether it is permissible for a trier of fact to assign a percentage rating in respect of Mr. Kusnierz's psychological impairments and to then combine that percentage with the percentage ratings in respect of his physical impairments for the purposes of determining whether Mr. Kusnierz was "catastrophically impaired".

The Ontario Superior Court rendered a decision in the case of Case v. Coseco Insurance Co.1 this case reviewed an array of issues, including the law regarding the vicarious liability of a motor vehicle owner for loss or damages sustained when the vehicle was in the possession of another person. The Court also delved into the oft-analyzed issue of consent; specifically, whether an owner of a vehicle can be found vicariously liable for giving consent to have possession of the vehicle, even though it expressly prohibits the other person from operating the vehicle.

Those lawyers who practice subrogation recognize that handling a subrogation file is very different from handling a defence file and requires a different mindset from practicing other areas of insurance law. Insurance companies are recognizing this as well. 

For many insurers, subrogation has become an integral part of the business of insurance... and as a result they have invested substantial resources in developing subrogation departments and in training recovery specialists.  How do lawyers and adjusters work together?

Crisis communication is a strategic component of an organization's overall operational response to a crisis. The significance of the communication plan, in the over all crisis management model, is many times under estimated. During a crisis, effective messaging to shareholders, stakeholders and the public, can be determinative as to how an organization's reputation, ie. it's brand and image, will be maintained. In addition, any crisis represents the potential for findings of liability down the road. As such, it is crucial to ensure that the messages of today never become the evidence of tomorrow, which will be used against the insured at a trial in the future.

Today, preparation for and seeking opportunities to avoid litigation prior to the loss even occurring is an integral part of the claim management process. It has become more complex not only because insurers and their insureds are more educated but they also, separately and together, want to be involved and understand the litigation process. It is also important to highlight that insureds, in particular, have developed higher expectations not only of the information they receive, but also the service they receive and the overall experience from the time they report the claim until resolution.

Insurance policies must be interpreted in accordance with the well-established rules of policy interpretation... ambiguities in insurance contracts are to be construed against the insurer. This paper will give you tips and samples on watching for industry jargon, fancy grammar, consistency and broad terms.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released this important decision on the position of an insurer whose subrogated claim is combined, as it must be, with the insured's uninsured loss claim in a single action.

The underlying action arose out of a fire and explosion as a result of which numerous new cars belonging to the insured, an automobile dealer, were damaged.

The matter was somewhat complicated by the fact that a class action had been commenced as a result of the loss event, and the insured had opted out of that class action, although the separate action commenced by the insured was ordered to be tried together with the class action and the two actions were being jointly case-managed.

A plaintiff drove his vehicle into a gas station and was assaulted by multiple attackers while his engine remained running. The plaintiff was ultimately able to put his vehicle into gear and escape, but not before sustaining serious injuries. Worthy of note is that the plaintiff's insurer paid him $73,061.27 in accident benefits before taking the position that the plaintiff was not involved in an accident, consequently seeking repayment of all amounts paid. Is a car jacking considered an "accident"?

A driver was speeding along an under-construction roadway that transitioned from asphalt to loose gravel. The motorist's velocity greatly exceeded that of both temporary and permanent speed advisory signs. The driver ultimately lost control upon the gravel road and was tragically killed. The motorist's family sued the regional municipality and road maintenance company for allegedly failing in their duties to properly maintain the road. Who's at fault?

The claimant was hired to effect body work repairs to a truck that he normally operated. The claimant's last memory was standing on the hood of the truck. He was found the next morning in a pool of blood and awoke in the hospital a few days later. He had sustained serious fractures and a brain injury. Arbitrator Feldman inferred from the evidence that the claimant had fallen from the truck while attempting to effect repairs to the roof. Is this an accident as defined by the Schedule?

In McLinden v. Payne (2011 ONCA 439), the Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether s. 40(4) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule precludes a person from making more than one application for a determination that he or she suffered a catastrophic impairment.

In Maccaroni v. Kelly (2011 ONCA 441), the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside an order dismissing an insured's action against her insurer, ING, for damages claimed pursuant to an OPCF 44R underinsured motorist endorsement. In this particular case, both the tortfeasor's insurance policy and the appellant's OPCF 44R endorsement had coverage limits of $1,000,000.00.

In the original action arising from the motor vehicle accident at issue, Co-operators General Insurance Company added itself as a statutory third party pursuant to s. 285 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. I.8. Co-operators took the position that its insured (the tortfeasor) was in breach of the statutory conditions of his policy and that, as a result, the insured's policy limits were reduced to $200,000.00 pursuant to s. 258(11) of the Insurance Act.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently delivered a decision interpreting the pollution exclusion commonly found in commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies. Such exclusions typically preclude coverage for the insured's liability for the release or escape of pollutants at or from the insured's premises.

Shipment of goods from one place to another involves complex networks of players, from shippers to cargo carriers, load brokers to stevedores, consignors to freight intermediaries, and so on. Given the volume and value of goods being shipped daily across the country and the world, international and domestic laws have been developed in order to ensure that the interests of the various parties are protected in the event that the goods are damaged while in transit.

This paper addresses recent developments with respect to the Marine Liability Act S.C. 2001, c. 6 (“MLA”), including commenting on pending regulations introducing compulsory insurance. This paper also briefly considers recently decided and pending case law concerning the application of the MLA’s limitations of liability for both personal injury and property damage claims. 

At the (Marine) seminar last year (2010) Simon spoke to you about, and showed you a picture of, the mobile offshore drilling unit, the Deepwater Horizon. On April 20th, 2010 a fire and explosion occurred on board the unit, owned by Transocean Ltd. and operated, at the time, for BP Exploration and Production, Inc. The unit sank 2 days later resulting in an uncontrolled flow of hydrocarbons from the well-head into the Gulf of Mexico over the course of a number of months. The US federal government declared the Deepwater Horizon a Spill of National Significance. Will we experience a spill of the same magnitude in this country?

The proliferation of international trade and commerce has led to increasingly complex product liability litigation with potential parties located across all parts of the globe. Simply stated, a person could be hurt in Ontario by a product designed in Germany, sold in Pennsylvania, and assembled in India with parts manufactured in Japan. With each party in the chain of commerce a potential defendant, there are important jurisdictional issues which arise in the product liability context.

In cases of multi-jurisdiction litigation, three issues frequently arise...

It is common practice for schools to offer enhancements to the curriculum in the form of field trips and extra curricular activities. These trips and activities may have certain risks associated with them depending on the activity. Examples of activities with risks associated are football, rugby, ski trips and climbing.

Two options to manage the risks associated with these types of activities are waivers and permission forms.

Difficult and tenacious litigants are individuals who are exceedingly dedicated and vindictive in their litigation. They are individuals who often have multiple actions against the same or different individuals or corporate entities, frequent appeals, actions against employees of corporations, actions that are obviously not going to succeed, frequent interlocutory motions and failing to pay costs. These individuals in many cases, are unrepresented or if represented, they may frequently change counsel. This type of litigant will become a source of frustration and for opposing counsel and they will increase the cost of the litigation. It is important for counsel to have a strategy to dispose of this type of claim expeditiously.

Whether an adult child who has completed a post-secondary degree and contemplating a second post-secondary degree will be considered a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act and eligible for child support is one of the most highly contested issues with respect to child support in family law.

This issue essentially dictates when a parent's obligation to pay child support ends. 

In drafting the Occupiers’ Liability Act (“the Act)”, the Ontario Legislature balanced its concern for the safety of people entering a premises with the competing interest that occupiers be encouraged to allow for recreational use of their property.

Because of these opposed considerations, Section 4(4) of the Act provides for a lower standard of care where occupiers allow individuals to make recreational use of their premises.

The inherent risks of active sports such as skiing give rise to a large number of personal injury claims each year. Managing the risk posed by such claims is a key concern of ski resorts. Ski resorts have developed a number of important and evolving legal strategies to limit their exposure to such claims. These strategies have evolved with the changes in the law over time and continue to grow with it. 

A spectator that becomes injured during the course of a sporting event will generally commence an action against the occupier of the facility where the sporting event was held. Occasionally, the action will include the individual participant, team, league, or others that may be appropriate in the circumstances.

In determining whether an occupier has in fact discharged its duty, the courts take into consideration the nature of the sporting event, any inherent risks, and whether the spectator can foresee those risks. The trier of fact may also rely on expert testimony to provide information on what the industry standard is for safety precautions in a given sport.

In the context of sports camps, the risk for insureds lies in claims made against them in negligence. Specifically, insureds are at risk of patrons at a day camp making allegations that they failed to fulfill the duty of care owed to them to keep them safe while engaging in a potentially dangerous activity offering horseback riding.

The Canadian chapter from the text entitled Product Recall has been updated for 2011.  The text is a comparative analysis of product recall legislation in 26 jurisdictions worldwide. Product liability law in Canada is governed by the common law in all provinces and territories except Quebec which is a civil law jurisdiction. While there are some differences in the legislation and case law across the common law jurisdictions, the law is fairly similar. The answers provided in this chapter are based on product liability law in the common law jurisdictions of Canada although some references to Quebec civil law are also included. 

In Dominion of Canada v. Kingsway,¹ the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed an insurer’s duty to defend in cases where an insured’s policy limits have been exhausted. The facts were such that a defendant’s policy limits of $200,000.00 were offered and accepted at mediation on the condition that a plaintiff with Family Protection coverage through Dominion could pursue her underinsured claim against her own insurer. Dominion would then receive an assignment of the judgment and could pursue the defendant personally for contribution.

In Jones v. Jenkins,1 an ING adjuster negotiated a settlement with a self-represented plaintiff. The plaintiff was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, but had not commenced an action against ING's insured, who was allegedly at fault. ING's adjuster directly corresponded with the plaintiff, requesting settlement proposals and making counter-proposals until a final agreement of $19,411.00 was reached and a release was signed. The plaintiff subsequently retained counsel and a Statement of Claim was issued. The defendant and his insurers argued that the signed release barred the proceeding.

On December 14, 2010, the Parliament of Canada passed the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA).  Royal Assent, the last step required in the creation of new law, was granted on December 15, 2010.  It is anticipated that an accelerated implementation plan will be developed by the Federal Government in order to facilitate the CCPSA coming into force in the next few months. 

When crafting an opening statement for trial, the opening statement is an opportunity to present your case and evidence to the jury and not an opportunity to attack the other party or make argument.

The purpose of this article is to discuss the decision in Spittal v. Thomas, [2006] O.J. no. 1617, where Justice Glass considered a motion for the judge to instruct a jury to correct improper remarks by plaintiff’s counsel in an opening address.

During multiparty motor vehicle accident litigation, plaintiff’s counsel often claims tactical advantage against one defendant by threatening to settle with other defendant.  If the plaintiff is not careful, this type of settlement can prove improvident and will frustrate the plaintiff’s efforts at further recovery.

A Case Comment on the Court of Appeals’ Decision in Riggitano v. Standard Life Assurance Co.

In some circumstances, a plaintiff will initiate an action against a defendant and then fail to take the necessary steps to move this action towards a trial.

The case of Beasley and Scott v. Barrand,1 decided by Moore J.of the Ontario Superior Court, appears at first blush to be a bar to the use at trial by a tort defendant of expert reports commissioned by a no-fault insurer. However, rather than barring the use of such reports by tort defendants, a careful review of this case reveals that it provides guidance on the proper practice to be followed by defence counsel when they seek to do so.

A brief history lesson comparing drivers’ licenses and the PCO Card and some thoughts on the future.  

A journalist does not have the constitutional right to protect a confidential source. That is the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v National Post, released on May 7th.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in the case of Co-operators Life Insurance v. Gibbens, 2009 SCC 59, in which an insured sought coverage under a group accident insurance policy for having contracted a sexual disease after having engaged in unprotected sex with a number of women. 

Three important, and in two of the three instances perhaps questionable, principles are considered in this recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The factual background of the case may be briefly stated as follows:  There was a fire protection system in the insured condominium complex.  As a result of a faulty design/installation an event occurred, resulting in flooding. Although only part of the equipment was damaged, the insured replaced, and made a claim under the policy for, all.  This was based on the position that the system as a whole was damaged and the unsupported allegation that it was a reasonable and responsible step to replace it in its entirety...

Many insurers for maintenance contractors have taken the position that so long as there is some allegation in the statement of claim that touches on some independent act of negligence on the part of the property owner, there is no duty to defend under this clause. However, last year in Riocan Real Estate v. Lombard, Madam Justice Hennessey concluded that so long as the “true crux” of the claim falls within the scope of the duty to defend...

On May 5, 2010, Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act (the “Act”) was passed by the House of Commons. The Act will require that the federal government set regulations to attain a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The Act also sets a more aggressive long term target to bring greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

When an individual sustains losses from personal injury from illness and then seeks to have their accident insurance policy cover these losses, decisions must be made as to whether these losses are covered by the policy and the specifically, if they fit within the definition of accident.  Throughout the jurisprudence, the definition of accident has been the subject of exceedingly complex litigation.

In Ligocki v. Allianz Insurance Company of Canada, 2010 ONSC 1166,,the Ontario Superior Court, on February 22, 2010,  confirmed that a self-proclaimed "self-employed contractor" may be entitled to income replacement benefits calculated as an employee.

Rougoor v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 99 O.R. (3d) 139, involved an action which arose as a result of a dirt-bike incident that occurred in Florida. The appellant was insured under a standard automobile policy with the respondent. Her policy of insurance with the respondent, listed, among other family-owned vehicles, one off-road dirt bike of which she was listed as the principal driver. The appellant was also listed as a secondary driver for another off-road dirt bike under the same policy of insurance.

Primmum Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2010 ONSC 986, involved an application for the appointment of an arbitrator in respect of a loss transfer dispute between Primmum Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Company.

The recent decision of Foschia v. Conseil Des Ecoles Catholiques de Langue (hereinafter Foschia) defined the school’s duty when dealing with a parent volunteer that the school does not want to volunteer or even be on the school premises.

When a parent volunteers at a school, it in many cases can be beneficial for the school, the parent and the students.  In some cases, it can create a difficult situation for the school.  Parent volunteers are untrained and come from a wide range of backgrounds and have varied goals with respect to their involvement with the school.  On occasion, it can expose the school to the risk of liability or complaint from other parents. 

Product liability law in Canada is governed by the common law in all provinces and territories except Quebec which is a civil law jurisdiction. While there are some differences in the legislation and case law across the common law jurisdictions, the law is fairly similar. The answers provided in this chapter are based on product liability law in the common law jurisdictions of Canada although some references to Quebec civil law are also included.

Point form information on claim resolutions strategies incliding early investigation, plaintiff productions, investigation and surveillance, experts, early settlement meeting, offer to settle, motion for summary judgment, meditation, bifurcation of trial, advance payment and appraisal of property claims.

Pastore v. Aviva, FSCO A04-002496, involved a claimant, Anna Pastore, who was a pedestrian involved in a motor vehicle accident on November 16, 2002. The matter proceeded to Arbitration on a number of issues including whether Ms. Pastore suffered a catastrophic impairment...

In Fourniev v. Coachman, the claimant was injured in an MVA on August 11, 2004.  He applied to Coachman Insurance for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Schedule and Coachman concluded that he was not catastrophically impaired.  The parties applied for Arbitration since they were unable to resolve their dispute through mediation. The issue in dispute was whether the claimant suffered a catastrophic impairment...

In the recent Ontario decision, Winckle v. Siodlowski, [2009] O.J. No. 4807 (Ont. S.C.J.)., Justice Hockin decided the applicability of the statutory deductible in a case where damages were assessed at exactly $100,000.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in  Keam v. Caddey, 2010 ONCA 565, has awarded plaintiffs $40, 000 in additional costs after an insurer refused to participate in mediation prior to trial. 

The plaintiff, in Tucci v. Pugliese, [2009] O.J. No. 2956, Maria Tucci, was seated in her kitchen when an uninsured motor vehicle driven by the defendant, Giuseppe Pugliese, ran into a wall of her house.  The collision caused a sudden, loud bang and violent shaking of the house, which allegedly caused tremendous shock to the plaintiff and inflicted damage to the home estimated at between $85,000 and $100,000...

In Lockhard, the plaintiff Lockhard was injured in a single-vehicle accident when her vehicle was being driven by the defendant Quiroz with her consent. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff's vehicle was insured by the third party C.A.A. Insurance Co. (Ontario) ("CAA"). The plaintiff sued the driver for damages.

In ACE INA Insurance v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 2009 CarswellOnt 1668 (Ont. S.C.J.), the claimant initially applied to the driver’s insurer, the Co-operators, for payment of accident benefits. However, the Co-operators took the matter to arbitration and argued that, under the “company car” provision, the claimant was a named insured under the ACE policy which made ACE solely responsible for his accident benefits claim. The arbitrator agreed with the Co-operators and ACE appealed the decision.

In the Mustapha decision,1 the Supreme Court of Canada conclusively established the objective nature of the foreseeability test to be applied in the determination of causation in law or, as the issue is sometimes described, remoteness of damage, in claims for psychological injury. What it did not do, however, was set down ground rules for the type and quality of evidence suitable for that determination...

When accidents happen at ski lodges or other remote locations, decisions have to be made about when, how and to where victims are to be transported. The Province of Ontario’s guidelines on how these decisions are to be made and the way these guidelines are administered could subject the Province to a private law duty of care, the Court of Appeal has recently held.

In Tridan Developments Ltd. v. Shell Canada Products Ltd., 2002, CanLII 20789 (ON C.A.), the Court dealt with an appeal from an assessment of damages arising from the contamination of the respondent's Tridan Developments Ltd. property by a gasoline spill from the appellant's Shell Canada Products Ltd. neighbouring gas station.

In order to establish negligence where careless smoking is alleged to have caused a fire, there must be evidence that smoking occurred proximate to the time and place of the origin of the fire.

The issue of whether and in what circumstances a waiver is a defence to an action for negligence is important and complex.  The recent case of Gallant v. Fanshawe College et al. articulates the court's considerations with respect to when a waiver is a defence to an action for negligence.  Gallant outlines the factors considered by the court including, the circumstances in which the contract is signed, the intentions of the parties, and the type of activity that is involved.

Unidentified motorist claims are, at times, challenging to investigate and resolve. Frequently, all the liability eveidence is solely within the knowledge of the plaintiff. There is some comfort to be had in an initial scene investigation by the police, and supporting eveidence arising form the property damage to the vehicle. In the event more than one vehicle was involved in the accident, witness statements are generally supportive of the plaintiff's allegations of a John Doe causing the accident.

Limitation periods vary across Canada, but generally range from 1 to 2 years for most causes of actions. The recent trend in Canadian courts has been to strictly enforce limitation periods, making it important for subrogation professionals handling claims in Canada to be mindful of the applicable limitation period and act timely and efficiently to ensure that the opportunity for recovery on potential claims is not lost.

Until the decision in C.C.R. Fishing Ltd. v Tomenson Inc., the element of causation in insurance law, particularly in the context of insuring provisions, revolved largely around the concept of proximate cause, meaning the effective and dominant cause of the loss.  Since that decision, the focus has shifted to a consideration of the impact of concurrent causes, both in regard to insuring agreements and exclusion clauses.

An area that has not, however, received the attention it merits is the distinction between serial and independent concurrent causes.

A long-standing insurance dispute over the failure of a massive tunnel boring machine (“TBM”) ended in late November 2008 with a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada awarding nearly $40 million to the insured. The decision addresses the “faulty or improper design” exclusion common to most “all-risks” property policies.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Miller v. Carluccio (2008), 91 O.R. (3d) 638 (C.A.) makes it clear that driving or operating an automobile without a valid driver's licence is not, in itself, sufficient to ground a subrogated claim. Although the case was decided on the issue of coverage, it has important implications for subrogation.

Until recently, there have been conflicting decisions as to whether the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act (the “Act”) constitutes an exclusive statutory scheme for dealing with claims by new home buyers against builders. The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that home buyers can pursue remedies against builders in the courts.

A municipality's obligations are the same for bicyclists as they are for pedestrians. It is obligated to keep the road and sidewalks in a reasonable state of repair and that responsibility covers not just problems that can be readily spotted but those hazards that may not be so obvious as well.

Whether it is a police officer responding to a call, an ambulance rushing to help a critically ill patient, or a fire truck speeding to a fire, intersections crashes are the most common and almost always the most serious collisions involving emergency vehicles.

A thumb is about an inch wide which makes a handy rule when it comes to sidewalk deflections. As a rule of thumb, if a sidewalk has a crack or deflection of more than a thumb width, a municipality may well be liable for any injuries resulting from a trip or fall.

In recent years there have been a number of developments in the law which have given rise to escalating damage awards. The focus on this paper is on the changes that have occurred with respect to: Future Care Costs, guardianship and management fees, and risk premiums.

Municipalities are responsible for keeping sidewalks clear of snow and ice and that means they may also be liable for any personal injury damages resulting from a slip and fall. But getting a handle on just what keeping sidewalks in a "reasonable state of repair" means can be as slippery as the footing underneath.

In today's ever increasing technological society, more so then ever companies and individuals are relying on electronic means to communicate, exchange and store documents and infomation. Whether it is via email or word processing, companies and individuals are moving away from hard copies and are depending increasingly on electronically stored information (ESI). More importantly and sometimes unbeknownst to the companies, individuals or their counsel, information and documentation are being stored indefinitely well beyond the previous retention of paper stored documents. ESI has created new challenges for the discovery process and implications for litigants.

Few manufacturers produce every part of their product. Almost all incorporate one or more components purchased from independent suppliers.  Many "manufacturers" are, in truth, little more than assemblers of components that they themselves to not make. This raises the following issue: where there is no contractual relationship with the claimant and no actual or constructive knowledge of any defect on the part of the manufacturer, should the manufacturer be liable for injury arising from a defective component purchased fro a reputable supplier?

The automobile insurance legislation in Ontario has undergone numerous amendments over the past 15 years which began with the introduction of a partial no-fault system in 1990 that replaced a pure tort system. As a result, a person injured in a motor vehicle accident as two types of claims...

On a practical level, causation simply means that the current condition or circumstances would be different had an act or omission not occurred. The alteration in circumstances can be positive, negative, or just a maintenance of the status quo.  The critical matter is that the situation would not be what it is had there been no act or omission; otherwise, the act or omission cannot be said to have had any effect on the current situation.  The “but for” test is merely another way of expressing this concept of change or difference in the current situation that would not otherwise have been present. 

Since the landmark decision in Menow v Honsberger, the potential liability of taverns and other commercial hosts for alcohol-related injuries has been well established.  In the 30-plus years since that decision, however, social hosts have received a free pass in cases where their involvement in the intoxication which led to the injury has been real and significant.  The purpose of this article is to suggest a new approach to the consideration of the liability of social hosts, one that promotes the policy considerations essential to this type of claim and, at the same time, accords with basic principles of law.

Canada followed with interest the dramatic aftermath to what may have been the closest presidential election in the history of its great neighbour to the south. While the constitutions and systems of government in the two nations are substantially different, democracy is the underlying foundation in both. The authors, who profess no expertise in American constitutional law, are therefore able to express opinions in this article that are founded on common basic principles of law and universally accepted tenets of fairness.

Those of us who practice involves personal-injury cliams have seen a large increase in "accident neurosis" claims in the past several years. These are claims in which the plaintiff's complaints are significantly more serious than the objective physiological injuries (if any) that occur. In many such claims, the complaints are so unusual as to warrant the description "bizarre".