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.

Insurance fraud is a tale as old as time. The earliest recorded incident occurred in Ancient Greece, around 300 BC. Hegestratos, a merchant, took out an insurance policy which required payment (with interest) upon his ship's safe arrival to its destination. Failing to repay the loan would result in repossession of the ship and its cargo. Hegestratos conspired to commit insurance fraud by sinking his empty ship and selling the cargo, thereby keeping the loan. For the record, he was unsuccessful, as he drowned trying to escape his crew who caught on to his plans.1

Since then, transportation methods have evolved, and so have opportunities for fraud.

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.

Surveillance is a powerful tool in cases involving plaintiffs with chronic pain, because it can lend objectivity to a case rife with subjective reporting. 

Overall, the relative cost of surveillance evidence as compared to its benefit, often makes it a cost-effective tool in personal injury litigation.

There are, however, important rules that defence counsel must abide by when gathering surveillance. These disclosure requirements are discussed below, and they suggest that surveillance should be gathered and disclosed early in the litigation process in order to encourage early resolution of the matter, if at all possible.

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 Bryan15 saw the largest award for future cost of care in Ontario’s history. The Superior Court of Justice in MacNeil made a total award of $18,427,207.20 to the plaintiff, a 15 year old female passenger in a vehicle that was involved in an accident that resulted in catastrophic injuries which included an open full frontal skull fracture with severe brain injuries, amongst other injures. The largest portion of the judgment was $15,158,500.00 awarded for future care costs. With this increase in the monetary compensation being provided to Canadian plaintiffs, special attention must be given to presenting a sound defence against inflated future care awards.

For those of you who self insure, let’s say the first million. For those of you who own fleets. For those insurers of cars and trucks. For everyone with an automobile policy of insurance. The following is a discussion of the stresses on the auto insurance product in Ontario.

In the decision of Vijeyekumar and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (1999) O.J. No. 2178 (C.A.), the deceased died of asphyxiation caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. He was found in his car, the engine was running and the hose had been attached to the exhaust pipe which ran to the front console inside the car beside the deceased. The deceased’s wife and daughter sued the deceased’s automobile insurer for death benefits under his automobile insurance policy. The Court of Appeal determined the applicable test was:

Due to the lack of significant institutional measures, it often falls to insurers and defence counsel to investigate instances of fraud on their own. While the bar is not overly familiar with confronting insurance fraud on a macro-level, defence lawyers can certainly identify trends and become experienced with insurance fraud through their work at the case level. This paper details cause for suspicion, response, and how to prove fraud.

An at-fault party may have no insurance or may be inadequately insured. Further, where an unidentified motorist is at-fault (as in the case of a hit-and-run) there may be no practical means of securing compensation for an injury as the at-fault party and his insurer may never be identified.

The system in Ontario has two mechanisms for dealing with such scenarios: 1. Uninsured / Unidentified Motorist coverage under s. 265 of the Insurance Act