-
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 2009
When It Comes to “Reasonableness” in Costs, Look Around to See Where You Are
This post relates to a decision that dates back to last December. We only recently became aware of it. Unfortunately, the case does not appear on CanLII, so we are unable to provide a link to the reasons. However, a … Continue reading
Posted in Costs
Comments Off on When It Comes to “Reasonableness” in Costs, Look Around to See Where You Are
Lawyer Swearing Affidavit Can’t Be “Informed” by “the File”
In Kailayapillai v. Azzam, Mr. Justice Theodore Matlow has addressed a very frequently recurring practice point: the proper form of lawyers’ affidavits on information and belief, where the source of the information is not another human being but rather, “the … Continue reading
Posted in Evidence, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Lawyer Swearing Affidavit Can’t Be “Informed” by “the File”
What Information Must Be Provided at Discovery, Regarding Surveillance?
Mr. Justice John Cavarzan has provided some clarification about a small point that not-infrequently comes up in personal injury litigation: what questions must the defendant answer about surveillance that has been undertaken on the plaintiff? The case is Marchese v. … Continue reading
Posted in Discovery, Practice and Procedure, Privilege
Comments Off on What Information Must Be Provided at Discovery, Regarding Surveillance?
Duty to Defend Determined, Not by Plaintiff’s Pleading, but by Defendant’s
Addendum: This case is of doubtful authority following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Meadows v. Meloche Monnex Insurance Brokers Inc., 2010 ONCA 394, released June 2, 2010. Glassford v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Company is an example of … Continue reading
Posted in Insurance News
Comments Off on Duty to Defend Determined, Not by Plaintiff’s Pleading, but by Defendant’s
Threshold Decision Underlines Dichotomy Within Ontario Insurance Act
The Ontario legislature has chosen to confer upon judges (alone) the right to decide whether or not a plaintiff in an MVA action meets the statutory “threshold”, making him or her eligible to receive an award of non-pecuniary general damages. … Continue reading
Posted in Auto (Tort), Insurance News, Juries, Threshold
Comments Off on Threshold Decision Underlines Dichotomy Within Ontario Insurance Act