September 22, 2010
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 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.
May 31, 2010
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.
February 28, 2010
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.
February 16, 2010
A financial advisor cannot guarantee the financial success of their professional services. This is certainly the situation with financial advisors over the past 18 months since the banking crisis of 2008. Where advise is provided, the advisor is obliged to advsie with reasonable care, skill and diligence and will be held to an objective standard. This paper will provide an overview of the regulatory and legal obligations of financial advisors and the liability they face in providing their unique services.
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.
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.
December 31, 2009
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.
