-
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: Tort News
C.A. Finds Trial Judge Set Causation Bar Too High in Slip and Fall Case
This afternoon, the Court of Appeal released its decision in Kamin v. Kawartha Dairy Limited. This was an occupier’s liability case that had been decided by Madam Justice Sarah Pepall in March, 2004. You can read the trial decision here. … Continue reading
Posted in Occupier's Liability
Comments Off on C.A. Finds Trial Judge Set Causation Bar Too High in Slip and Fall Case
Slip and Fall Plaintiff 1/3 at Fault for Not Watching Where She Was Going
An Ontario Superior Court judge has found a plaintiff one third contributorily negligent for failing to observe the curb on which she tripped and fell, even though it was in plain sight. In Henhawk v. Brantford (City), Justice David S. … Continue reading
Posted in Occupier's Liability, Tort News
Comments Off on Slip and Fall Plaintiff 1/3 at Fault for Not Watching Where She Was Going
Careless Smoking a Nuisance
We have attached a copy of the reasons for judgment in Kinsmen et al. v. Walker Estate, a decision of Mr. Justice Denis Power that was handed down last week. Our firm acted for the plaintiffs in this subrogated claim for … Continue reading
Posted in Fires, Insurance News
Comments Off on Careless Smoking a Nuisance
Contributory Negligence
In Snushall v. Fulsang, released today, the Court of Appeal discussed the appropriate treatment of contributory negligence in an MVA case, based on a plaintiff’s failure to wear (or to wear properly) a seatbelt. The jury in this case had … Continue reading
Posted in Tort News
Comments Off on Contributory Negligence
C.A. Confirms that Occupiers Are Not Insurers
In Doyle v. Petrolia, released a few minutes ago, the Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the principle, that occupiers of property are not insurers. The Occupier’s Liability Act does not require that occupiers of property guard against every possible risk, … Continue reading
Posted in Occupier's Liability, Tort News
Comments Off on C.A. Confirms that Occupiers Are Not Insurers
Summary Judgment in Head-on Collision Case
In Hussain v. Uddin, Mr. Justice Gerald F. Day has taken the somewhat unusual step of granting a defence motion for summary judgment in an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The moving defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Noack, … Continue reading
Posted in Auto (Tort), Practice and Procedure, Tort News
Comments Off on Summary Judgment in Head-on Collision Case
Culligan Man Liable for Dead Flies in Bottled Water
Today’s case isn’t particularly earth-shattering, but it’s of some interest to students of tort law. The case is Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd. (reasons for judgment attached, courtesy of Mr. Justice Thomas Granger of the Ontario Superior Court). The … Continue reading
Posted in Products Liability, Tort News
Comments Off on Culligan Man Liable for Dead Flies in Bottled Water
Divisional Court Says No to Bifurcation of MVA Jury Trial
It is not uncommon these days to see parties, usually defendants, ask for a “bifurcated trial”. In most cases, this means that liability would be tried first and then damages would be assessed at a later date, in a second … Continue reading
Posted in Auto (Tort), Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Divisional Court Says No to Bifurcation of MVA Jury Trial
B.C. Tavern Liability Case Notable for Facts, Not Law
By now, you have probably heard of last week’s decision of the B.C. Supreme Court in Laface v. McWilliams et al. This was a case in which a drunk driver drove into a group of pedestrians, causing some serious injuries. … Continue reading
Posted in Social and Commercial Host Liability, Tort News
Comments Off on B.C. Tavern Liability Case Notable for Facts, Not Law
No Right to IME in Absence of Adequate Supporting Evidence
A just-released Superior Court decision reminds us that defendants are not automatically entitled to have a personal injury plaintiff examined by multiple medical practitioners, from various disciplines. They must establish, through evidence, why such examinations are needed.
Posted in Auto (Tort), Discovery, Practice and Procedure, Tort News
Comments Off on No Right to IME in Absence of Adequate Supporting Evidence