-
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: January 2007
C.A. Discusses Principles of Contractual Interpretation and “Piercing the Corporate Veil”
In Dumbrell v. The Regional Group of Companies Inc., the Court of Appeal has reviewed the principles governing contractual interpretation. It has also provided a useful discussion of the circumstances in which the directing mind of a corporation can (and … Continue reading
Posted in Contract
Comments Off on C.A. Discusses Principles of Contractual Interpretation and “Piercing the Corporate Veil”
C.A. Says Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund is “Insurer” for Purposes of Dispute Resolution
In two decisions, released today, a five-member panel of the Court of Appeal has held that the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund is, for limited purposes, an “insurer”. The cases are Allstate Insurance Company of Canada v. Motor Vehicle Accident … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Insurance News
Comments Off on C.A. Says Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund is “Insurer” for Purposes of Dispute Resolution
C.A. Adopts Master Beaudoin’s Test for Setting Aside Registrar’s Dismissal Order
In Scaini v. Prochnicki, the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the jurisprudence dealing with setting aside an order made by the registrar of the Superior Court, dismissing an action for failure to place it on a trial list within two … Continue reading
Posted in Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on C.A. Adopts Master Beaudoin’s Test for Setting Aside Registrar’s Dismissal Order
C.A. Disallows Law Firm’s $60,000 Premium for Result “Beyond Wildest Expectation”
Last April, we began a post by remarking that “The law firm of Kramer Henderson had a very good day today.” Mr. Justice John Belleghem had allowed an appeal from a decision of an assessment office and had allowed a … Continue reading
Posted in Insurance News, Lawyers
Comments Off on C.A. Disallows Law Firm’s $60,000 Premium for Result “Beyond Wildest Expectation”
C.A. Says 15-Year “Ultimate Limitation Period” Runs from January 1, 2004
In an important decision, released today, the Court of Appeal in York Condominium Corporation No. 382 v. Jay-M Holdings Limited et al. reversed a ruling by Mr. Justice John Ground and held that if a claim is not discovered until January … Continue reading
Posted in Discoverability, Limitation Periods
Comments Off on C.A. Says 15-Year “Ultimate Limitation Period” Runs from January 1, 2004
Divisional Court Overturns Order Requiring Production of Insurer’s In-house Lawyer’s File
In Smith v. London Life Insurance Company, the Divisional Court reversed an order made by Superior Court Justice Gordon Thomson, who had directed the defendant London Life to produce “its entire claims file arising from a prior action between the parties, including … Continue reading
Posted in Discovery, Practice and Procedure, Privilege
Comments Off on Divisional Court Overturns Order Requiring Production of Insurer’s In-house Lawyer’s File
Judge Finds “Staggering” Discrepancy Between Legal Fees of Successful Defendant and Losing Plaintiff
Justice Joan L. Lax’s decision in Antorisa Investments Ltd. v. 172965 Canada Limited et al. illustrates why legal fees are becoming such an important part of commercial litigation. Her ruling makes it clear that winners cannot expect to be indemnified by losers for … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on Judge Finds “Staggering” Discrepancy Between Legal Fees of Successful Defendant and Losing Plaintiff
Dangerous Driving Conviction Precludes Driver from Contesting Liability in Civil Action
The decision of Mr. Justice David M. Brown in Caci v. MacArthur raises some interesting questions relating to apportionment of fault. It also applied to this MVA action a line of decisions in sexual abuse cases, where defendants had not been … Continue reading
Posted in Evidence, Juries, Practice and Procedure, Trial Procedure
Comments Off on Dangerous Driving Conviction Precludes Driver from Contesting Liability in Civil Action
Judge Criticizes Loose Practices Afflicting Court Approval of Settlements
In Marcoccia v. Gill, Mr. Justice John C. Wilkins has criticized, in rather strong language, various practices that have grown up around court approval under Rule 7.08, of settlements of claims by persons under legal disabilities. (These are what were … Continue reading
Court Strikes Claim for Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress
In High Parklane Consulting Inc. v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, Mr. Justice Paul Perell struck out a claim for intentional infliction of mental distress, brought by the principal of a company that was itself a plaintiff, suing for breach of … Continue reading
Posted in Contract, Practice and Procedure, Tort News
Comments Off on Court Strikes Claim for Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress