-
Recent Posts
Archives
- October 2015
- July 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- January 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- September 2011
- May 2011
- February 2011
- October 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
Categories
- Advertising Injury
- Allocation of Defence Costs
- Appeals
- Auto
- Auto (Tort)
- CGL
- Collateral Benefits
- Commercial Litigation
- Conflict of Laws
- Contract
- Costs
- Damages
- Defamation
- Discoverability
- Discovery
- Duty to Defend
- Environmental
- Evidence
- Exclusions
- Experts and Opinions
- Fire Insurance
- Fires
- FLA
- Insurance News
- Juries
- Lawyers
- Limitation Periods
- Litigation Technology
- Municipalities
- Occupier's Liability
- Pleadings
- Practice and Procedure
- Practice of Law
- Privacy
- Privilege
- Products Liability
- Professional Liability
- Risk Transfer
- Sale of Goods
- Social and Commercial Host Liability
- Subrogation
- Threshold
- Tort News
- Trial Procedure
- Uncategorized
- Uninsured or Underinsured
- Waivers and releases
Meta
Category Archives: Privacy
Must Insurer Maintain “Firewall” Between Tort and No-Fault Claims?
In Trecartin v. Pilot Insurance Company, Mr. Justice George T. Valin considered the position of an insurer defending both a tort action and an accident benefits claim brought by the same plaintiff. In the no-fault action, the insurer, Pilot Insurance, was … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Collateral Benefits, Discovery, Insurance News, Practice and Procedure, Privacy, Privilege
Comments Off on Must Insurer Maintain “Firewall” Between Tort and No-Fault Claims?
Div. Ct. Says Defence Medical, Surveillance Report from Tort Claim Can’t Be Used in Subsequent AB Litigation
In Kitchenham v. AXA Insurance Canada, the Divisional Court has considered the “deemed undertaking” rule (Rule 30.1.01) in the context of personal injury litigation. The decision of the Court was written by Associate Chief Justice Douglas Cunningham, concurred in by … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Discovery, Insurance News, Practice and Procedure, Privacy
Comments Off on Div. Ct. Says Defence Medical, Surveillance Report from Tort Claim Can’t Be Used in Subsequent AB Litigation
Privacy Commissioner Says Adjuster’s Request for 5 Years of Medical Records Might Have Exceeded Scope of Authorization
In PIPEDA case #362, an insurance adjuster had obtained from an accidents benefits claimant a release for medical records. The document read as follows: I hereby authorize any doctor, hospital, clinic, institution or person, possessing information or medical records on … Continue reading
Posted in Insurance News, Privacy
Comments Off on Privacy Commissioner Says Adjuster’s Request for 5 Years of Medical Records Might Have Exceeded Scope of Authorization
PIPEDA Complaint Based on IME is Ruled “Not Well-Founded”
The Assistant Privacy Commissioner has rejected a complaint by insureds who alleged that their accident benefits had been terminated because of their refusal to attend an “independent medical examination” (“IME”) which had been scheduled by the insurer. The Assistant Commissioner found … Continue reading
Posted in Privacy
Comments Off on PIPEDA Complaint Based on IME is Ruled “Not Well-Founded”
Surveillance Video Does Not Contravene PIPEDA
An Ontario Superior Court judge has rejected an argument, made by a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action, that surveillance video should not be received in evidence at trial because it contravened the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act … Continue reading
Posted in Evidence, Practice and Procedure, Privacy
Comments Off on Surveillance Video Does Not Contravene PIPEDA