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 the recent decision of Cromarty v. Waterloo (City), Justice D.A. Broad of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with the applicability of the Minimum Maintenance Standards2 as a defence to municipal liability in the case of a pedestrian trip and fall on a municipally-owned sidewalk.

You're walking to grab a bite to eat from your favourite sushi place down the street. It's a warm, clear night and you pass the local businesses which give your neighbourhood its sense of character. An organic coffee shop. A marijuana dispensary. A vintage bookstore. Another dispensary. Maybe the grocer has those strawberries you like. Yeah, that sounds good. Yet another dispensary. A fourth dispensary. A fifth dispensary – this one with a clever name. Were there always this many?

In 2020, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision following the third trial in Lloyd v Bush. The case arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2001.

As a result of the accident, Ms. Lloyd sustained serious injuries. She sued not only the operator and owner of the propane tanker but also named the Corporation of the County of Lennox and Addington and the Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee as defendants to her claim. At issue in the third trial was the question of liability: how much liability, if any, should be attributed to the municipal defendants for the poor road conditions? And would the municipalities' efforts to meet the minimum maintenance standards absolve them of liability?

(PLUS Download MB's complimentary Minimum Maintenance Standards Chart!)

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...

When is the government entitled to act without the possibility of liability or subsequent second-guessing by the Courts? It is generally accepted that policy decisions made by government actors are immune from findings of liability claimed in negligence.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada in Nelson (City of) v. Marchi, 2021 SCC 41, has provided additional guidance on this topic. 

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.

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.

First published in Advocates Quarterly. A municipality’s statutory duty to keep its roads and sidewalks in repair has long given rise to a cause of action to persons injured as a result of the breach of that duty.

Jury trials provide the opportunity for a group of people, selected at random from the community, to decide issues of fact or assess damages in a Superior Court action. An action can be tried with a jury if a jury notice is delivered by one of the parties before the close of pleadings, which is typically early on in the life of an action. After pleadings are closed, a jury notice can only be delivered with leave of the court.

This article is our latest update in our swimming pool liability series, following our 2013 paper. 

This year's approach will focus on public pools encompassing not only municipally funded facilities but also pools located in resorts and at hotels. Beginning with a refresher on the Occupiers' Liability Act, we will then explore the standards required of public pools, with a distinction made between Class A and Class B pools under Regulation 565 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act (“HPPA”) then the liability exposure between supervised versus unsupervised pools, and finally, we will provide best practices for risk management of public pools.
 

Our previous article covered a pushing incident on a Toronto Catholic District School Board (“TCDSB”) playground in March 2015. Following our previous article, the mother of the injured boy discontinued the lawsuit in question. The TCDSB later discontinued their crossclaim against the two students. While some school boards, students, and parents may be relieved to hear this news, a discontinued claim should not lead them to believe similar claims will simply disappear in the future.

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.

Recently, the public learned of a lawsuit against two children regarding a schoolyard incident in 2015. With school back in session, what does this current state of affairs mean for students, school boards – and even parents moving forward? Furthermore, what should insurers be thinking about as children fill the halls and playgrounds for another year?

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...

On Monday, March 28, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal released their decision, Lloyd v. Bush, 2017 ONCA 252. This case was an appeal by the County of Lennox and Addington (the "County") and the Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee ("the Town") from a trial level decision that found the respective municipalities liable for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident.

In the recent decision of Raubvogel et al v. The City of Vaughan et al (“Raubvogel”), the Ontario Superior Court outlines the distinction between a municipality's policy and operational decisions. Specifically, the City of Vaughan (“the City”) argued that it did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs on the basis that its decision not to replace the incident water main was an issue of policy. Accordingly, the City argued that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by section 450 of the Municipal Act (“the Act”). However, counsel for the plaintiffs, Adam Grant, a partner at McCague Borlack LLP, was successful in demonstrating that such a failure in these circumstances was an operational decision as there was “no apparent reason” for the failure to replace the water main.

One alternative measure of damages for real property, is based on the cost of repair reduced by the amount to which those repairs will better the property; a concept known as betterment. Betterment and the court's interpretation...

With the government's stated intention to legalize marijuana, and the current challenge with policing these new businesses, dispensaries and vapour lounges can now be found in many urban and suburban areas. While many of these cater to individuals with needs for medicinal marijuana and require prescriptions before dispensing, some dispensaries and vapour lounges are less scrupulous when selling marijuana or marijuana-based products to their customers. 

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 single-vehicle accidents lead to a fatality, apportioning liability is often a daunting task for courts to undertake. In Morsi v. Fermar Paving Ltd., the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a trial judge’s decision. This case is significant for the insurance industry as it reaffirms the duties owed by municipalites and outlines the test that courts take when apportioning liability in a single-vehicle accident.

A driver was speeding along an under-construction roadway that transitioned from asphalt to loose gravel. The motorist's velocity greatly exceeded that of both temporary and permanent speed advisory signs. The driver ultimately lost control upon the gravel road and was tragically killed. The motorist's family sued the regional municipality and road maintenance company for allegedly failing in their duties to properly maintain the road. Who's at fault?

A municipality's obligations are the same for bicyclists as they are for pedestrians. It is obligated to keep the road and sidewalks in a reasonable state of repair and that responsibility covers not just problems that can be readily spotted but those hazards that may not be so obvious as well.

Whether it is a police officer responding to a call, an ambulance rushing to help a critically ill patient, or a fire truck speeding to a fire, intersections crashes are the most common and almost always the most serious collisions involving emergency vehicles.

A thumb is about an inch wide which makes a handy rule when it comes to sidewalk deflections. As a rule of thumb, if a sidewalk has a crack or deflection of more than a thumb width, a municipality may well be liable for any injuries resulting from a trip or fall.

Municipalities are responsible for keeping sidewalks clear of snow and ice and that means they may also be liable for any personal injury damages resulting from a slip and fall. But getting a handle on just what keeping sidewalks in a "reasonable state of repair" means can be as slippery as the footing underneath.