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...

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.

Parents of multiple children often try to steer clear from favouritism, to ensure that each child is treated and cared for equally. This consideration often extends beyond a parent's lifetime as evidenced in their will, when instructions are provided for the equal division of assets between the children. When a testator's direction indicates otherwise, it often ignites sibling rivalry and results in will challenges, and a tremendous amount of court time. That is precisely what happened in Quaggiotto v Quaggiotto, 2019 ONCA 107, where one brother felt that the other wrongfully got more.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Milne Estate (Re), 2018 ONSC 4174, alarmed the Estate Bar and left people wondering whether they had to put on their running shoes and scurry to their lawyer's office to redraft what they once believed to be a valid will. Fortunately, the apprehension can be put to rest, as this decision was successfully appealed at the Divisional Court level, allowing people to delete from their calendars “see lawyer re: redraft will”.

In Lee v Ponte, 2018 ONCA 1021, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether S.7 of the Limitations Act, wherein the basic limitation period of two years does not run during the time in which the person with the claim is incapable and is not represented by a litigation guardian, applies to extend the time within which an estate trustee can bring a claim that the deceased person had before death.

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.

The day-to-day life of a farm kid is exceedingly different from that of a “city" boy or girl. While some children are told to take out the trash, clear the table, and tidy up their bedrooms, children of farmers are expected to be up at the crack of dawn to engage in unpaid, arduous labour to support the viability of the farm and to prepare the next generation to take over. What happens when these children grow up and feel they should now be compensated for their "family chores"?

Michelle Constance Moore (“Moore”) married Lawrence Anthony Moore (“the deceased”) in 1979. They had three children and cohabited until December 1999. The deceased began living together with Risa Lorraine Sweet (“Sweet”) in her apartment in the summer of 2000, and they cohabited until his demise on June 20, 2013. In the interim, Moore and the deceased were divorced in October 2003.

In October 1985, while married to and cohabiting with Moore, the deceased obtained a life insurance policy in the amount of $250,000. Moore was named the beneficiary, but was not made an irrevocable beneficiary pursuant to certain provisions in the Insurance Act (Ontario).

The issue is whether the proceeds of the life policy upon the death of the deceased were payable to the original beneficiary (who continued to pay the policy premiums) or the new beneficiary.

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.

Once a settlement amount is agreed upon, there is often much additional work to be completed prior to closing a file. Structuring a settlement, while typically largely the responsibility of the plaintiff or prospective plaintiff, can often cause significant delay in the final resolution of a file.

In order to maximize the amount received through settlement, plaintiffs who are recipients of benefits through the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) will often try to create what is known as a Henson trust, in order to try to avoid negatively affecting their eligibility for benefits. This paper explains the origins and applicability of Henson trusts in personal injury settlements.