-
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: March 2006
Divisional Court Finds FSCO Ruling on “Catastrophic Injury” Not “Patently Unreasonable”
Ruling does not disturb FSCO finding that one hour after accident was “reasonable time” for GCS reading to be taken. Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News
Comments Off on Divisional Court Finds FSCO Ruling on “Catastrophic Injury” Not “Patently Unreasonable”
Homeowner’s Policy Must Indemnify Against Criminally Negligent Shooting
The latest chapter in the Eichmanis litigation is a ruling on whether either of two homeowner’s insurance policies provided liability coverage to a 15 year old boy who had pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm as a result of having … Continue reading
Posted in Insurance News
Comments Off on Homeowner’s Policy Must Indemnify Against Criminally Negligent Shooting
Defendant Insurer Awarded Substantial Indemnity Costs from Date of Offer
In a rather unusual ruling, Mr. Justice Herman Siegel has awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis to a defendant, on the basis that both litigants were commercial parties with substantial resources and access to specialized legal advice. The award … Continue reading
Posted in Costs, Insurance News, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Defendant Insurer Awarded Substantial Indemnity Costs from Date of Offer
Divisional Court Says Mediator Can’t Be Forced to Testify
In Rudd v. Trossacs Investments Inc., the Divisional Court has ruled that a party to a settlement reached at a mandatory mediation could not examine the mediator as a witness on a subsequent motion seeking rectification of the settlement. Justices … Continue reading
Posted in Evidence, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Divisional Court Says Mediator Can’t Be Forced to Testify
Proof of Delivery of Insurance Policy a Prerequisite to Enforcing Exclusion?
Today’s decision in Hazan v. ING Insurance Company of Canada considers (but does not decide) an interesting issue in Ontario insurance law: must an insurer prove that it has delivered a copy of the insurance policy to the insured before … Continue reading
Posted in Fire Insurance, Insurance News
Comments Off on Proof of Delivery of Insurance Policy a Prerequisite to Enforcing Exclusion?
S.C.C. Won’t Hear Seatbelt Appeal
The Supreme Court of Canada today refused leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in Snushall v. Fulsang. That was the ruling given last September, in which the Court of Appeal held that contributory negligence for failure to wear … Continue reading
Posted in Auto (Tort), Tort News
Comments Off on S.C.C. Won’t Hear Seatbelt Appeal
Homeowners Not Liable for Slip and Fall on Adjacent City Sidewalk
Justice Mary J. Nolan of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed a slip and fall action against homeowners whose property lay next to a municipal sidewalk. In Peterson v. Windsor, The plaintiff had slipped on the sidewalk and sued both the … Continue reading
Posted in Occupier's Liability, Practice and Procedure, Tort News
Comments Off on Homeowners Not Liable for Slip and Fall on Adjacent City Sidewalk
Damages Compendium
From time to time in our Update newsletters, we have alerted our subscribers to an invaluable resource for judges, masters, practitioners and insurance claims personnel. It is the “Damages Compendium“, prepared under the auspices of the County of Carleton Law Association. … Continue reading
Posted in Damages
Comments Off on Damages Compendium
Defendant Ordered to Pay Costs of $120,000 in Simplified Rules Action
In actions brought under simplified procedure (also known as “Rule 76” actions), the plaintiff’s claim is generally limited to a maximum of $50,000. Examinations for discovery and pre-trial cross-examinations aren’t allowed. The whole process is supposed to be streamlined so as to reduce … Continue reading
Posted in Costs, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Defendant Ordered to Pay Costs of $120,000 in Simplified Rules Action
Two Courts Deny Relief from Forfeiture
In two Ontario Superior Court decisions released this week, insureds have been denied relief from forfeiture in actions against their insurers. The first is Niagara Gorge Jet Boating Ltd. v. AXA Canada Inc. This is a decision of Madam Justice … Continue reading
Posted in Insurance News
Comments Off on Two Courts Deny Relief from Forfeiture