PUBLICATIONS

On November 18, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision on whereby an insurer may be allowed to deny coverage based on a policy breach discovered several years down the road.

On November 20, 2020, Bill 218, entitled “Supporting Ontario's Recovery and Municipal Election Act, 2020” (“the Act”) received Royal Assent.1 The Act provides at section 2(1) that:

No cause of action arises against any person as a direct or indirect result of an individual being or potentially being infected with or exposed to coronavirus (COVID-19) on or after March 17, 2020, as a direct or indirect result of an act or omission of the person if...

In Huma v. Mississauga Hospital, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action against 14 physicians and two hospitals, alleging to have suffered significant damages as a result of the professional wrongdoing of same. The Statement of Claim stated that the plaintiffs were self-represented. Upon receipt of the Claim, the defendants defended the action.

Months later, having heard nothing from the plaintiffs, the defendants inquired as to whether the plaintiffs were willing to dismiss the action...

In the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision Hashemi-Sabet Estate v. Oak Ridges Pharmasave Inc. (“Hashemi-Sabet”),1the court addressed the principles of offer and acceptance in the context of multiple Rule 49 offers, and the enforcement of a Rule 49 offer to settle. As Justice Pepall noted, “Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may bring a motion for judgment in the terms of an accepted offer and the judge may grant judgment accordingly or continue the proceeding as if there had been no accepted offer to settle.” In this case, the appellants argued that the motion judge erred in giving judgment to a Rule 49 offer which they argued had been revoked before it had been accepted. The respondents argued that the offer had not been properly revoked.

On September 17, 2018, Justice Coroza of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released his decision in Bucknol v. 2280882 Ontario Inc1(“Bucknol”),a motion for summary judgement dealing with commercial host liability and outlining the pillars of claims of negligence. Interestingly, Justice Coroza originally heard the motion in January of 2018 and reserved his decision. In June of 2018, counsel for the defendant (moving party) brought to his Honour's attention the May 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Rankin (Rankin's Garage & Sales) v. J.J (“Rankin”) and further written submissions were requested of counsel.

By way of background in Bucknol, the plaintiff was struck by a beer bottle that had been thrown by an unknown assailant at Classic Lounge Nightclub...

In July 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Gillham v Lake of Bays (Township) (“Gillham”),1 wherein the Court of Appeal struggled with the issue of whether a claim made after the limitation period could be permitted. 

You have been retained to act for the insurer and the driver as a result of a rear-end motor vehicle accident in which the driver has been rear-ended. There is likely no liability against your client and there are no mechanical issues with the vehicle. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, you encounter a difficult insured who refuses to co-operate and fails to reply to your letters, phone calls, or requests (pleas), that they attend examination for discovery. What do you do?

Oftentimes, builder's risk policies contain waivers of subrogation, and contractors, more often than not, are listed as additional insureds. For this reason, subrogated claims are few and far between in the construction context. However, the recent case of Maio v. Mer Mechanical Inc., 2018 ONSC 4426 (“Maio”) suggests that subrogation may be possible.