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 order to protect limitation periods, especially in cases where liability is yet to be determined, there is an obligation on counsel to identify, name, and pursue all parties who may be liable to the plaintiff(s). However, as the discovery process begins, parties often become aware that they have added in a party that will bear no liability to the plaintiff(s). Often, parties are able to consent to a dismissal or discontinuance without costs; however, there are cases in which defendant(s) will not go out without costs. In these cases, parties can move for a ruling under Rule 23.05...

This matter involves the appeal of a third party's motion for summary judgement on the grounds of a claim being statute barred. The defendant, in this case, attempted to join the third party to the action several years after the claim began on the basis that they had no knowledge of their involvement until well after they replied to the plaintiff's claim. This case demonstrates, however, that what constitutes knowledge of a potential claim, and a party's obligation to further investigate potential claims when evidence is presented to them.

The Supreme Court recently undertook to further refine the duty of honest performance in contract law. In a significant ruling on December 18, 2020, the Court held that this duty of honest contractual performance extends beyond lies to include knowingly misleading another party, whether through a partial truth, an omission, or even silence.

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...

Amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, courts in Ontario have been working to modify existing online infrastructures and acquire new technologies in order to meet the needs of Ontarians and to maintain the safety of those who work in the courts. In doing so, the Ministry of the Attorney General ("MAG") has recently expanded the Justice Services Online platform and procured "CaseLines" for the use of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The following are some updates around civil matters in the Superior Court of Justice in the Central East Region. Please note they are all subject to change.

The interpretation of a corrosion exclusion was one of the major issues considered in the recent decision in MDS Inc. v Factory Mutual Insurance Company. For reasons outlined below, I believe the interpretation and determination regarding its applicability in the circumstances of the case were incorrect.

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.

Following up our recent article on Business Interruption amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the March 30, 2020, Ontario Superior Court decision MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company continues to remind us that the old adage, ‘you get what you pay for' rings loud and true...

In Alizadeh v Ontario (Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks) (“Alizadeh”), the Court highlighted the high evidentiary burden on rebutting a presumption of management and control by a director in a Director's Order, emphasizing the importance of meeting environmental protection objectives.

This article takes a high-level perspective of the regulation of the fur farming industry in Canada, with a specific focus on the predominant fur-bearing species raised on fur farms in Canada: minks and foxes.

Canada's robust fur trade saw over 2.3 million minks and foxes bred on fur farms in 2017, generating approximately $800 million dollars. As of 2017, there were over 200 mink and fox fur farms across Canada, which produced over 2 million pelts. Even now, there is a trend towards the use of mink fur in eyelash extensions. However, despite the size of the industry, the legislative framework is surprisingly inconsistent and often under-regulated. 

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.

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.

When an accident occurs, the typical liability issues arise. Upon receipt of a claim, insurers are prompted to consider a number of important questions. Such questions include whether the accident was a result of the action or inaction of the driver; what if anything could have been done to avoid the accident or mitigate the consequences; what kinds of contributing factors may have been at play (such as the road or weather conditions), among other considerations.

When an accident involving a transport truck or marine vessel occurs, there are also often cargo and fuel considerations and more specifically, environmental considerations relating to fuel and cargo spills. It is this very issue that some insurers have been failing to turn their minds to; more specifically, the environmental liability aspects of accidents that result in fuel or oil spills, both from trucks and ships.

This paper endeavours to elucidate some of the relevant statutes to consider when such an accident occurs and shed light on the appropriate steps an insurer ought to take upon receiving such claims.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently delivered a decision interpreting the pollution exclusion commonly found in commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies. Such exclusions typically preclude coverage for the insured's liability for the release or escape of pollutants at or from the insured's premises.

On May 5, 2010, Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act (the “Act”) was passed by the House of Commons. The Act will require that the federal government set regulations to attain a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The Act also sets a more aggressive long term target to bring greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

In Tridan Developments Ltd. v. Shell Canada Products Ltd., 2002, CanLII 20789 (ON C.A.), the Court dealt with an appeal from an assessment of damages arising from the contamination of the respondent's Tridan Developments Ltd. property by a gasoline spill from the appellant's Shell Canada Products Ltd. neighbouring gas station.