-
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 2007
Passengers in Car Entitled to Liability Insurance Coverage for Claim by Inline Skater
In Morrow v. Symons, a young man was seriously injured while being towed on inline skates. He sued the driver of the car towing him, as well as three your men who were occupants of the car at the time. … Continue reading
Posted in Auto, Duty to Defend, Insurance News
Comments Off on Passengers in Car Entitled to Liability Insurance Coverage for Claim by Inline Skater
C.A. Says No E & O Coverage for Law Firm Providing Investment Advice
In Cassels, Brock & Blackwell v. LawPRO, the Court of Appeal ruled that a duty to defend was not owed to the plaintiff law firm by its liability insurance carrier, the Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company (“LawPRO”). The policy contained an … Continue reading
Posted in Insurance News, Professional Liability
Comments Off on C.A. Says No E & O Coverage for Law Firm Providing Investment Advice
SCOTUS Overturns Punitive Damages Award in Tobacco Case
The Supreme Court of the United States has overturned a $79.5 million punitive damages award made by an Oregon jury against cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris USA. In Philip Morris USA v. Williams, the widow of a heavy smoker named Jesse … Continue reading
Posted in Damages
Comments Off on SCOTUS Overturns Punitive Damages Award in Tobacco Case
Voids in Soil Held to be “Property Damage”, Resulting in CGL Coverage
Madam Justice Janet Wilson of the Ontario Superior Court has released a significant decision in the interpretation of commercial general liability insurance policies. In York Region Condominium Corporation No. 772 v. Lombard Canada, she rejected coverage arguments raised by Lombard … Continue reading
Posted in CGL, Insurance News
Comments Off on Voids in Soil Held to be “Property Damage”, Resulting in CGL Coverage
C.A. Reduces Damages to $1,000 but Upholds Trial Costs of $115,000
An odd decision from the Court of Appeal today in Aristorenas v. Comcare Health Services. At trial, the plaintiff was awarded damages of $55,000 and costs were agreed upon at $115,000. The parties also agreed that the costs did not … Continue reading
Posted in Costs, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on C.A. Reduces Damages to $1,000 but Upholds Trial Costs of $115,000
C.A. Says “Intentional or Criminal Act” Policy Exclusion Does Not Require Criminal AND Intentional Act
UPDATE: On August 23, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed with costs an application for leave to appeal this decision. The original post follows. In Eichmanis v. Wawanesa, the Court of Appeal has clarified the intepretation to be placed on … Continue reading
Posted in Insurance News
Comments Off on C.A. Says “Intentional or Criminal Act” Policy Exclusion Does Not Require Criminal AND Intentional Act
Defendants Ordered to Pay Costs Where Claims Representative Failed to Attend Mediation in Person
In Laporte v. Ridgewell, Master Lou Anne M. Pope ordered the defendants to pay costs where the claims representative of the defendants’ insurer balked at travelling from outside Windsor for a mediation. The defendants had proposed to have the claims representative participate … Continue reading
Posted in Insurance News, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Defendants Ordered to Pay Costs Where Claims Representative Failed to Attend Mediation in Person
“Small cases cannot carry big fees any more than you can make a winter coat out of a small scrap of cloth”
In Stratton Electric Limited v. Guarantee Company of North America et al., Mr. Justice G. Dennis Lane of the Ontario Superior Court was required to fix costs of the successful defendant, Guarantee Company of North America, in an action that had … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on “Small cases cannot carry big fees any more than you can make a winter coat out of a small scrap of cloth”
Court Cites “Massive Overkill” Where Total Legal Costs Exceed $400,000, Judgment for Less than $30,000
In Dinsmore v. Southwood Lakes Holdings Ltd., Mr. Justice John H. Brockenshire had some interesting things to say about costs. This action involved the cost of remedying a damp basement in a townhouse. It proceeded to trial under ordinary procedure, although … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on Court Cites “Massive Overkill” Where Total Legal Costs Exceed $400,000, Judgment for Less than $30,000
S.C.C. Reaffirms Primacy of “But For” Test for Causation
In an important ruling for tort litigation, the Supreme Court of Canada today allowed an appeal from a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal which dealt with the issues of “foreseeability” and “causation”. In the course of its reasons, … Continue reading
Posted in Evidence
Comments Off on S.C.C. Reaffirms Primacy of “But For” Test for Causation