-
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
Monthly Archives: February 2006
Brak v. Walsh (New Threshold Decision)
A decision dealing with the Insurance Act threshold was released this afternoon by Superior Court Justice Gordon Killeen, in Brak v. Walsh. Justice Killeen found that, in this case, the threshold had not been met. This was a motor vehicle case … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Threshold
Comments Off on Brak v. Walsh (New Threshold Decision)
S.C.C. Grants Leave in Citadel v. Vytlingam
The Supreme Court of Canada this morning granted leave to Citadel Insurance to appeal last year’s decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Vytlingam v. Farmer et al. Subscribers will recall that in that case, three North Carolina youths placed … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News
Comments Off on S.C.C. Grants Leave in Citadel v. Vytlingam
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”
Important Costs Decision
Awards of costs have increased substantially since 2002, making costs a key ingredient of many lawsuits. Last week, the Divisional Court released a comprehensive review of the principles to be applied by courts in assessing costs. This is the first … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on Important Costs Decision
Two Courts Refuse to Overturn Settlements
Two cases today addressed the question of when a settlement is enforceable. One was a Court of Appeal decision: Mohammed v. York Fire and Casualty Insurance Company. The other was a decision of Justice Denis Power of the Ontario Superior … Continue reading
Posted in Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Two Courts Refuse to Overturn Settlements
Quebec Slip and Fall Claim Permitted to Proceed in Ontario
Mr. Justice Paul Perell, a recent appointee to the Ontario Superior Court, has ruled that an Ontario resident who fell and injured herself at her brother’s Quebec home, can nevertheless pursue a claim for damages in an Ontario court. In … Continue reading
Posted in Conflict of Laws
Comments Off on Quebec Slip and Fall Claim Permitted to Proceed in Ontario
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
Insurer Successfully Sues Its Defence Counsel for Trial Loss
In a case that may be of interest to LawPRO examiners as a possible harbinger of things to come in this country, an American insurer, dissatisfied with the outcome of a suit that it took to trial, has sued its … Continue reading
Posted in Insurance News
Comments Off on Insurer Successfully Sues Its Defence Counsel for Trial Loss
Another C.A. Decision on “Ownership, Use or Operation”
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal in Blight v. Axa and Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company. Our firm acted for the successful respondent, Royal & SunAlliance. Royal insured a tenant and the issue was whether the policy … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News
Comments Off on Another C.A. Decision on “Ownership, Use or Operation”
15 Year “Absolute” Limitation Period Bars Claim for 1978 Negligence
York Condominium Corporation No. 382 v. Jay-M Holdings Ltd. et al. is the first case that we have seen that has interpreted the 15 year “absolute” limitation period found in s. 15 of the Limitations Act, 2002. There was no … Continue reading
Posted in Limitation Periods
Comments Off on 15 Year “Absolute” Limitation Period Bars Claim for 1978 Negligence