PUBLICATIONS

First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.

In Ontario, there is a well-established practice of asking jurors to provide reasons for their verdicts. The jury is not absolutely required to provide this information. There is a presumption of integrity regarding general verdicts; simply because the jury did not explain its verdict is not a ground for appeal.

The exception to this presumption arises in professional negligence cases...

In Ontario, s.4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, (“Act”) establishes a two-year limitation period for a claimant to commence an action, which begins to run once the claim is discovered. However, there exists an exception for those claimants that are “incapable” to commence the proceeding.

In this case study, a man suffering from mental illness and psychotic delusions, killed his son and later commenced an action against the drug company...

You have just been sued for breach of contract by a former business partner.

As you skim through a legal document that sets out a laundry list of your alleged failures and faux pas, a few paragraphs jump out at you. Why does the document make reference to an argument over the design of your company's logo? And why is there commentary on the not-so-secret office romance between two of your employees? As far as you can tell, neither of these issues have anything to do with the contract in dispute.

To what extent must service technicians warn their customers of particular risks associated with the product they are servicing? After presiding over a seven-day trial on liability alone, Madame Justice S. Gomery grappled with this very question and provided a framework to help answer it in her recent decision in Maxrelco v Lumipro Inc., 2018 ONSC 3638.

This decision explains what factors would trigger the duty to warn and in what circumstances would they attract liability.

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that common interest privilege (“CIP”) is a principle of Canadian law. This principle is unlike solicitor-client privilege, in that communication between counsel and a third party may be considered privileged if the shared information is to benefit both parties, especially with respect to the furtherance of a commercial transaction. The court overturned a Federal Court decision which held that that CIP is not a principle of Canadian law.

Does the duty of good faith require a disability insurer to inform a claimant of a legislative limitation period?

The end of 2017 brought the dismissal of a leave application at the Supreme Court of Canada that relates to this issue and which will be of interest to insurers throughout Ontario and throughout the country.

In Usanovic v. Penncorp, the Ontario Court of Appeal had decided that insurers were not obligated to inform insureds of the two-year limitation period when denying benefits.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently upheld an application judge's decision to deny the mayor and Town of Rainy River relief from the harassment of a local resident in its recent decision, Rainy River (Town) v. Olsen.

In this case, a local resident of the Town Rainy River had an interest in horticulture and town beautification. He began writing to the mayor and council with ideas concerning a variety of issues such as agriculture, gardening, and general community beautification. Unsatisfied with the responses he received, his communications to the mayor and council allegedly grew increasingly abrasive and insulting. On one occasion, he attended the mayor's workplace and verbally harassed her.

Defamation law, mostly conceived in an old-media world, historically balanced one person's right to freedom of speech with another's to not have his or her reputation unfairly attacked. The emergence of social media has made it more difficult to navigate the application of these long-standing principles. Unlike the traditional letter to the editor, comments on social media can be posted instantly, often in the heat of emotion, and many people who post comments do so under the mistaken belief that they will remain anonymous. Social media has the ability to create a false sense of intimacy, as users may mistakenly believe they are only speaking to a small, well-known group of individuals...

There can be no doubt that cyberbullying is a new and disturbing development that significantly impacts society these days. It has resulted in various high-profile suicides involving teens and has contributed to some of the most horrific events of recent years.

A troubling variation of the commonly understood scope of cyberbullying is the sharing online of private and highly intimate videos of a sexual nature that were never intended to be shared publicly, colloquially referred to as 'revenge porn'.

Not surprisingly, this new form of bullying raises new societal issues, including new potential exposure for insurers.

Today the Ontario Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision inMoore v. Getahun, dealing with significant issues in relation to the preparation and use of expert witness reports at trial, including the scope of permissible communications between counsel and expert witnesses.

Crisis communication is a strategic component of an organization's overall operational response to a crisis. The significance of the communication plan, in the over all crisis management model, is many times under estimated. During a crisis, effective messaging to shareholders, stakeholders and the public, can be determinative as to how an organization's reputation, ie. it's brand and image, will be maintained. In addition, any crisis represents the potential for findings of liability down the road. As such, it is crucial to ensure that the messages of today never become the evidence of tomorrow, which will be used against the insured at a trial in the future.

A journalist does not have the constitutional right to protect a confidential source. That is the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v National Post, released on May 7th.