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.

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.

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.

Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Thomson v Portelance, 2018 ONSC 1278, reminded the Bar that a party to motor vehicle accident litigation in Ontario must schedule a mediation once requested.

In Thomson, Justice Firestone presided over a case conference requested by the plaintiff in a situation where the defendant refused to schedule mediation until after examinations for discovery were complete...

Mediation is a process in which a neutral third party assists the disputing parties in reaching a mutually acceptable resolution. Mediation is designed to be a confidential and voluntary process, free of the formality and adversarial nature of court proceedings. Due to the benefits that the mediation process has yielded, Rule 24.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure enforces mandatory mediation in some locations and for certain civil actions.

This article details reasons why a matter may not resolve at mediation, and still can list the benefits the process can offer disputing parties.

As of May 1, 2017, the practice direction regarding the timing of mandatory mediations in Toronto has changed.

Mandatory mediations must now be completed prior to an action being set down for trial unless a judge or case management master orders otherwise.  This is a significant change from the past practice direction that only required mandatory mediations to be scheduled before the action could be set down for trial. This change applies to all Toronto files that have not yet been set down for trial.

We anticipate that this change to the practice direction will lead to earlier mediations on Toronto matters. We are already starting to see the impact of this change, in terms of plaintiffs' counsel reaching out earlier than ever to schedule mediations, some even seeking to schedule same at the same time as scheduling discoveries.

Mediation is an increasingly common form of dispute resolution and one which provides many benefits to any party who would otherwise engage in litigation. However, there are several benefits and concerns which are unique to municipalities named as defendants in motor vehicle accident claims...

It is not news to anyone that resolving civil claims is a long and costly process. A great deal of time and money is regularly lost due to the back-logged court system and legal expenses associated with mandatory procedure that must be followed, all while the procedure and jurisdiction of the court are not needed to come to a resolution. It is often in the best interests of insurers to resolve subrogated claims that are defended by insurers without the involvement of the courts.

The Canadian Inter-Company Arbitration Agreement ("the agreement") is an initiative designed to streamline claims disputes as between insurance companies who are signatories to the agreement. All insurance companies who are signatories to the agreement are therefore bound to comply with the obligations set-out therein. The process encourages efficient and cost-effective resolution to these claims.

Subjective injuries present a multifaceted problem for defense lawyers. To clarify, subjective injuries refer to instances where a plaintiff makes a claim for chronic pain or a mental illness that is difficult to objectively substantiate through scientific or medical evidence.

This then raises an important question: what is the difference between cases involving chronic pain where the plaintiff receives compensation for his or her injuries and those cases where no such awards are made? The answer appears to be related to the plaintiff’s credibility. Specifically, because of the lack of objective evidence that is available to support a claim for chronic pain, almost all of these cases boil down to the issue of credibility.

You will recall that the Ontario Court of Appeal in Keam v Caddey, 2010 ONCA 565 awarded the plaintiff $40,000 in additional costs after an insurer refused (twice) to participate in mediation prior to trial. Aviva Canada took the position that the plaintiff would not be able to meet threshold and therefore Aviva did not believe it was obligated to attend mediation as there was nothing to negotiate.

The Court of Appeal found that the Insurance Act imposes two obligations on the insurer. First, the insurer is obligated to participate in mediation when requested. Second, the insurer is obligated to attempt to settle the claim as expeditiously as possible.

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.

Two recent decisions, one of the Ontario Superior Court, the other an arbitral decision of the Financial Services Commission, have interpreted the “60 day” mediation provisions at section 19 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code as mandatory. Where mediation does not occur within 60 days, the mediation is deemed to have failed, and the insured person may pursue arbitration or litigation. Read full article including the case summaries...

In ACE INA Insurance v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 2009 CarswellOnt 1668 (Ont. S.C.J.), the claimant initially applied to the driver’s insurer, the Co-operators, for payment of accident benefits. However, the Co-operators took the matter to arbitration and argued that, under the “company car” provision, the claimant was a named insured under the ACE policy which made ACE solely responsible for his accident benefits claim. The arbitrator agreed with the Co-operators and ACE appealed the decision.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in  Keam v. Caddey, 2010 ONCA 565, has awarded plaintiffs $40, 000 in additional costs after an insurer refused to participate in mediation prior to trial.