PUBLICATIONS

In Cox v. Miller (Cox), the British Columbia Court of Appeal (the "BCCA") upheld the trial judge's decision by affirming that irrespective of an individual's intent and permissible rules of a game, injuries as a result of reckless and dangerous acts during recreational sports are risks not undertaken by players and are thereby able to constitute liability in negligence.

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 Actava TV Inc. v. Matvil Corp, released on February 19, 2021, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified the law on letters of request for third-party production.

The crux of the dispute in this case centred around a 'letter of request'. A letter of request, sometimes called a letter rogatory, "is the medium whereby one country, [...] seeks foreign judicial assistance that allows for the taking of evidence for use in legal proceedings[.]" In this case, the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, issued a letter to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. At its core, the letter is merely a request, and as such, must be endorsed or made enforceable by the recipient jurisdiction.

There have been a number of motions to strike jury notices throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many of which resulted in jury notices being struck.

However, in the recent decision in Corkett v. Ginn, 2021 ONSC 7434 (CanLII), the court dismissed a Plaintiff's motion to strike a jury notice in an action commenced in the Central East Region.

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...

On June 28, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice led by Myers J., released a decision in Arksey v. Sky Zone Toronto, 2021 ONSC 4594.

Generally, this was a summary judgement based on the terms of a waiver and the release of liability by the plaintiff. Specifically, whether the plaintiff waived her right to sue arising from injury caused by the defendant's failure to supervise and follow its injury policies.

In 1985, Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was introduced to encourage parties to make and accept reasonable offers to settle. This has had the effect of discouraging parties from delaying the judicial process and increasing costs unnecessarily. Rule 49 has had a considerable effect on litigants by virtue of the risk of a large costs award following trial.

To trigger the cost consequences under Rule 49, an offer must meet strict requirements:

This was updated in December 2020 after appeal.

This was a dispute between AIG Insurance Company of Canada and Lloyd's Underwriters in respect of the duty to defend a claim brought against the City of Markham.

The City rented a hockey rink to the Markham Waxers Hockey Club and associated entities. A young boy was injured while attending a game at the hockey rink. He sued the City, Hockey Canada and the Waxers for damages resulting from his injuries.

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.

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...

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.
 

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...

To what extent can sports clubs, facilities and leagues be held responsible for the violent outbursts of a player during a game?

The Ontario Court of Appeal in Da Silva v. Gomes, 2018 ONCA 610 recently upheld the principle that supervising authorities are generally not legally responsible for "a sudden unexpected event in the midst of an acceptable, safe activity."

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.

In the recent decision TMJ Hygiene Service Corporation v Aces Capital Inc.,1Monahan J. rescinded a $95,000 contract for the sale of two seat licenses at the Air Canada Centre. Justice Monahan found that the vendor, Aces Capital Inc. (“Aces”), misrepresented the location of the tickets associated with the seat licenses to the purchaser, TMJ Hygiene Service Corporation (“TMJ”).

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...

On March 6, 2018, Bill 193: Rowan’s Law (Concussion Safety), 2018(“Rowan’s Law”) passed its third reading. The Bill will next go before the Lieutenant Governor to receive Royal Assent.

Rowan’s Law is named for Rowan Stringer, a 17-year-old rugby player who died after sustaining a traumatic brain injury in a rugby game. The Bill will come into force on the day it receives Royal Assent, although this day has not been announced (section 9(1)).

Overall, Rowan’s Law is intended to serve as “broad framework legislation” for concussion management and prevention in amateur competitive sport. 

A “sport organization” will be required to:

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.

All hosts know there are several elements that need to be properly planned when hosting a social function: the company, the food, the music and, of course, the refreshments. With the anticipated legalization of recreational marijuana in Canada, however, could a social host face exposure if marijuana is provided and something unexpected happens?

A recent decision emerging from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice will likely have a significant impact on the viability of waivers in the defence of personal injury actions in Ontario.

Although the ruling in Schnarr v Blue Mountain Resorts is under appeal, the effect of the decision in Schnarr on the enforceability of waivers in Ontario is profound.
 

The absence of a law on parental waivers is of particular concern for the countless number of businesses and organizations such as schools, recreational sport facilities, and children's summer camps (to name a few) that rely on these waivers in carrying out their regular activities. However, it appears that clarity may be forthcoming as indicated in a recent New Brunswick case, Dewitt v. Strang...

Those who have watched or participated in a hockey game will know that rough play is an inherent risk of the sport. What constitutes an inherent risk in hockey if not an illegal check from behind? Are all illegal manoeuvres that violate the rules of the league tortious? What mental element must be present for liability to attach? How do these factors determine the availability of insurance coverage? Each of these questions will be addressed.

Due to the dangers associated with attending professional sporting events, such as hockey and baseball, leagues across North America have taken action to limit sports-related injuries through the implementation of various safety regulations. 

With the commencement of the annual winter ski season, the legal exposure to ski hill and resort operators arising from injuries suffered by skiers and resort guests alike consequently increases. One of the most common forms of protection from this increase in risk is through the use of waivers.

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. 

Justice Pollak's recent decision in Matthew Linton et al v. Tholos Restaurant et al.1 raises the old issue of the extent to which a restaurant must take positive steps to keep an intoxicated patron from hurting himself.

In my opinion, Justice Pollak's decision could extend the liability of a restaurant and make it an insurer of its patrons' safety. This could increase the risk of taverns and their insurers, and expose them to near-unlimited liability.

The law recognizes that large groups of people who are drinking, even in moderate quantities, can become rowdy and pose a danger to patrons of establishments that serve alcohol (though the definition of “moderate” drinking differs from person to person, especially in a country like Canada where we often swell up with national pride at the sight of beer commercials). As a result, taverns are obliged, under the Occupier's Liability Act1 to take reasonable steps to monitor the premises and to take positive steps to intervene to prevent fights if such incidents are reasonably foreseeable.

In recent years, we have seen a tremendous increase in the size of awards that Canadian courts and juries are willing to grant plaintiffs for future cost of care. This head of damages, even prior to these recent cases, was already the largest component of a catastrophically impaired plaintiffs claim. The 2009 case of MacNeil v Bryan1 saw the largest award for future cost of care in Ontario's history.

In Jensen v. Fit City Health Centre Inc., the plaintiff, who was a member of the defendant’s gym, was injured while using a shoulder press machine caused by the defendant allegedly allowing the machine to exist in a defective condition.  At trial, the jury found that the defendant was not negligent and, therefore, not liable for the plaintiff’s loss. Following the completion of the trial, the Court was tasked with making a determination on the validity of a waiver entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant that was contained within the gym’s membership agreement and associated membership renewal documentation. 

With the increased frequency of travel outside province and country, comes a corresponding increase in activity-related injuries. These can result in lawsuits for injuries sustained abroad. Managing where lawsuits may be commenced becomes a source of concern for those involved in the travel industry, such as resort and tour operators and their insurers. Ontario hotel and resort operators may therefore unknowingly find themselves being named as defendants in actions commenced outside of Ontario. This will cover, how it happens, how to challenge it, and managing location in the future.

This paper will set out the common law defences available to a resort, its owners, and its insurers, when a patron is injured on their premises. Secondly, it will explore and discuss aspects of tavern liability and its application to resorts. Finally, this paper will provide several recommendations that resorts can enact to assist in limiting their exposure to liability.

Occupiers have a duty to ensure that the facility where the sporting event is held is reasonably safe. It is important to note that the standard of care is based on foreseeable risk, which is to be distinguished from an absolute guarantee of maintaining a completely risk-free environment. In determining whether an occupier has in fact discharged its duty, a court will take into consideration the nature of the sporting event, any inherent risks, and whether the spectator can foresee those risks. The trier of fact may also rely on expert testimony to provide information regarding the industry standard for safety precautions in a given sport.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently examined the effectiveness of a signed waiver as a full defence in the context of injuries sustained during recreational sports play in Levita v. Alan Crew et al.

In this case, the plaintiff, Robbie Levita, was a player on a recreational hockey team in a league operated by the defendant, True North Hockey Canada (“True North”). Of note, this was a “no-contact” recreation league, which means body checking was prohibited. During the course of a game, the plaintiff suffered a fractured tibia and fibula as a result of being checked from behind into the boards by the defendant.

The Superior Court of Justice of Ontario recently released a decision that provided additional comments on the efficacy of waivers and the development of waiver defences in Ontario. 

In Trimmeliti v. Blue Mountain Resorts Limited,¹ decided by the Honourable Mr. Justice Dunphy, the plaintiff, a season pass holder, was night skiing with friends on the defendant’s premises when he collided with a fluorescent orange mesh ribbon that was used to close a run.  As a result of this collision, the plaintiff suffered a fractured clavicle...

Sport and recreational activities invite a certain type of participant. Typically, these participants are committed to the activity they are taking part in and, in most cases, have a drive to be the best at that activity. However, what if during the course of taking part in an activity, the participant suffers an injury? 

This paper will present strategies that can be employed by defendants in shifting the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries back onto the plaintiff themselves.

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.

Sports have long been a part of everyday life for many people, both as spectators and participants. With modern advances in science the true inherent dangers of many of these sports are finally being examined, specifically with regard to concussions. Recent studies have revealed an alarming prevalence of concussions and other head injuries suffered by athletes in contact sports that are played all over the world, such as football, hockey, rugby and soccer. The results of these studies have brought much attention to the laws, rules, and regulations governing the conduct of athletes, coaches, trainers and other key personnel when a potential concussion has been experienced. Due to the possibility of serious and permanent injuries occurring on the field, diamond, rink or other, the potential for high value litigation is ever present.

Exposure for occupiers’ liability is not a novel topic of discussion in the world of tort and insurance law. However, the application of occupiers’ liability to minor plaintiffs is an area of law that has been evolving in recent years. The most dynamic change has been that Courts are more readily finding that occupiers whose premises are geared towards children should expect minors who enter their property to be, to a certain extent, reckless and unpredictable by virtue of their youth and inexperience, and accordingly, ensure their premises are that much safer.

The emphasis on holistic learning has led to an increase in field trips and physical activities that are both further from students’ schools and are inherently more dangerous than traditional school activities. This has greatly increased the potential for student accidents and injuries. Many schools attempt to shield themselves from liability by forcing students, and students’ parents, to sign permission forms and/or waivers of liability. However, the content of these forms, and the difference in their purposes, has a tremendous impact on whether or not the Courts will accept these documents as a barrier to potential liability.

The general test for determining whether one person has acted negligently towards another in Canada is contained in the dual concepts of duty of care and standard of care – that is, the hurt party has to show that the party they think is responsible for their harm was under a legal obligation to protect them from or prevent that harm. The Supreme Court of Canada recently looked at the different categories of duty of care in its decision Childs v Desormeaux. The language the court used to describe duty of care is as follows: “A positive duty of care may exist if foreseeability of harm is present and if other aspects of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant establish a special link or proximity.”1 Once that link has been established, the standard of care kicks in, dictating how much the individual is required to step in and prevent an injury from occurring.

Where does this leave adult supervisors when the children they are overseeing hurt themselves? This paper will focus on the liability different types of supervisors – teachers, coaches, referees, even parents – may face when supervising children, and how they can effectively protect themselves and the children they are caring for from liability and harm.

Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death among Canadian minors. Between 1990 and 2007, over 1.6 million children and youth received emergency room treatment for unintentional injuries at hospitals across Canada. Sports and other recreational activities are common precipitating events of serious injury among minors. The ramifications of these injuries to a child can be profound, particularly in cases involving even “mild” trauma to the brain. In the context of litigation, the costs associated with the loss of future earnings and future care can be significant, with damages in some cases being assessed in the millions.

While the spectre of eight figure exposure may seem daunting enough, several factors conspire to make cases involving injuries to minors particularly difficult to navigate from the defence perspective. With this in mind, the following paper will address common legal and strategic elements to be considered when attempting to settle cases involving injuries to minors.

The inherent risks of active sports and recreational activities give rise to a large number of personal injury claims each year. Managing the risk posed by such claims is a key concern of sports resorts, camps, and other recreational facilities. Sports facilities have adapted tools, such as signed releases and waivers, and more recently, ski resorts have printed limitations provisions on lift tickets, in order to further reduce their exposure to liability, particularly deriving from the acts of staff. 

Swimming pools and gym facilities are a very attractive feature of recreational resorts and hotels. The ‘resort gym’ may be appealing to those seeking to maintain a fitness regimen while travelling and vacationing, particularly to those patrons who might be drawn to recreational resorts and are keen on maintaining an active lifestyle. In the context of ski resorts, specifically, a quick dip in the pool or a lengthy soak in a warm spa are often welcome après-ski. However, the unique nature of recreational resorts raises a number of inherent liability risks for recreational resort owners.

In Canada, outdoor winter sports, such as skiing, are popular pastimes. However, speeding down snow and ice-covered ski hills presents considerable risk to participants of these sports, and thus, accidents result. Generally speaking, these accidents arise out of recognized risks inherent to the activities, and the injured party is deemed, by their participation, to have voluntarily undertaken such risks. Regardless, operators of sports events or facilities, such as operators of ski hills, are required to properly administer their events or venues according to industry standards. They also owe a duty of care to their skiers, snowboarders, tubers, and other users of their facilities and rental equipment.

Fans attend sporting events every day across Canada and throughout the world. Many fans are there to cheer on their favourite teams, witness a historical game between long-standing rivals, and simply enjoy the traditions associated with attending such an event. These games may attract large crowds and stir emotions, particularly as there is a culture of alcohol often associated with professional sports. While one may reasonably expect to witness a player hurt themselves on the field or on the ice, spectators do not often expect that they themselves will be injured.

This paper examines a range of situations in which liability may attach to sports and entertainment facility owners and operators when spectators are injured during sporting events, as well as how such liability may be avoided. Attention is given to the courts’ interpretation of the legislative provisions in Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act. This area of law serves as an abundant source of Canadian sports law jurisprudence. The discussion proceeds with an outline of categories of available defences to spectator claims, followed by an examination of select issues of significance to Canadian sports facility owners and operators. Finally, new frontiers in spectator liability are explored, as well as risk management strategies for avoiding spectator claims.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently released a decision on the case "Loychuk v Cougar Mountain Adventures" which has significant implications for the law regarding the enforceability of liability waivers. 

At the trial level, the plaintiffs sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a zip-lining accident. The tour involved strapping a person into a harness, which would then be sent down a line, reaching speeds of up to 100 km an hour over a distance, on some lines, greater than 1,500 feet. 

This article reviews many aspects of the case including the two elements that must be established before a contract can be set aside on the grounds of unconscionability; and a three stage analysis which must be applied in order to determine whether a signed release of liability is valid.

In Canada, all amateur hockey players playing organized hockey are required to wear a Canadian Standards Association (CSA) approved helmet. Indeed, while CSA approved helmets are required, any helmet lacking CSA approval is a prohibited product under the Hazardous Products Act and is not permitted to be sold in Canada. Given the popularity of ice hockey in Canada and the risk of serious injuries, such as concussions, while playing hockey, it is not surprising that manufacturers of ice hockey helmets are open to potential liability in negligence for the design and manufacture of their products.

The prevalence of concussions and other head injuries suffered by athletes in contact sports, such as football, hockey and soccer, has garnered significant attention in Canada and the United States of America (USA). An athlete’s decision to return to play following an injury typically involves multiple parties, such as the coach, team, sports organization or school board, thus, exposing these parties to potential legal liability.

Therefore the question that emerges is which of these parties, or a combination thereof, bears the legal responsibility for the injuries suffered by these athletes?

It is common practice for schools to offer enhancements to the curriculum in the form of field trips and extra curricular activities. These trips and activities may have certain risks associated with them depending on the activity. Examples of activities with risks associated are football, rugby, ski trips and climbing.

Two options to manage the risks associated with these types of activities are waivers and permission forms.

In the context of sports camps, the risk for insureds lies in claims made against them in negligence. Specifically, insureds are at risk of patrons at a day camp making allegations that they failed to fulfill the duty of care owed to them to keep them safe while engaging in a potentially dangerous activity offering horseback riding.

A spectator that becomes injured during the course of a sporting event will generally commence an action against the occupier of the facility where the sporting event was held. Occasionally, the action will include the individual participant, team, league, or others that may be appropriate in the circumstances.

In determining whether an occupier has in fact discharged its duty, the courts take into consideration the nature of the sporting event, any inherent risks, and whether the spectator can foresee those risks. The trier of fact may also rely on expert testimony to provide information on what the industry standard is for safety precautions in a given sport.

The inherent risks of active sports such as skiing give rise to a large number of personal injury claims each year. Managing the risk posed by such claims is a key concern of ski resorts. Ski resorts have developed a number of important and evolving legal strategies to limit their exposure to such claims. These strategies have evolved with the changes in the law over time and continue to grow with it.