Some municipalities now engage in the practice of adding tenants' unpaid hydro bills to an owner's property tax. Landlords are then forced to chase previous tenants to recover these losses. Where does the municipality get the authority to do this? How can landlords help protect themselves?
The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Data Act (PIPEDA) governs how private sector organizations collect, use and disclose personal information in the course of commercial business. For the purposes of PIPEDA, a landlord is an organization engaged in a commercial activity and is therefore required to comply with the Act. PIPEDA defines “Personal Information” as information about an identifiable individual, but does not include the name, title business address or telephone number of an employee of an organization
March 12, 2015
Landlords have long since struggled with the issue of "problem pets" in their residential units. Cleanliness, property damage and liability for injuries caused by tenants' pets are all common concerns. What does provincial legislation say about pets in residential complexes and what options are available to landlords?
March 02, 2015
Mary Carters and Pierrenger Agreements are types of agreements used in multi-defendant litigation. Both agreements involve settlement between the plaintiff, and some, but not all, of the defendants. In essence, they allow for actions to partially settle. While these agreements appear useful, the law concerning them (in particular, Mary Carters) is both complex and rapidly evolving. Read the full case study and details on both...
February 25, 2015
On February 18, 2015, Justices Sharpe, van Rensburg and Pardu of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released their long-awaited privacy law decision in Hopkins v. Kay. Despite the fact that the Personal Health Information Protection Act ("PHIPA") is a "lengthy and detailed statute" that comprehensively addresses "the collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal of personal health information", the Court affirmed that plaintiffs are still entitled to raise the common law tort for breaches of privacy in circumstances involving health information.
January 31, 2015 saw the release of a class action certification involving the transportation industry. Continuing the trend of class actions seeking unpaid overtime, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a $100 million class action lawsuit for unpaid overtime against the defendant, Canada Cartage.
The statement of claim alleges Canada Cartage only paid overtime if the 60 hour threshold was exceeded, regardless of the type of employee, and that this policy was contrary to the regulations.
The plaintiff in this case had suffered a catastrophic brain injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident.
The parties disputed whether she had "incurred" expenses for attendant care services within the meaning of s.3(7)(e) and whether attendant care services can be provided indirectly by electronic means.
This decision will assist first party insurers in determining whether Applicants are entitled to attendant care.
February 09, 2015
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.
With the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew, a fair amount of commentary has been written about the emerging importance of good faith in contractual relationships. One should not consider this decision to represent a sudden judicial pronouncement concerning entirely novel duties owed amongst contractual parties; rather, the doctrine of good faith has existed for some time for certain categories of contracting parties and the courts have adopted a distinct method for uniquely assessing the duties imposed. This article reviews the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision under the lens of the pre-existing doctrine of bad faith as it exists between contracting parties in the insurance market.
Important case law has been released concerning when policies must respond in actions involving rented or leased vehicles. The question before Justice Firestone in Elias v. Koochek, 2014 ONSC 5003, was whether or not the policy of a renter would still rank in priority if the renter was a third party and not a defendant in the main action.
October 31, 2014
The Final Report of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force was released. This task force was appointed to advise the government of Ontario on the extent of automobile insurance fraud and what to do about it. Its findings were as follows:
This article explores the interaction between chronic pain and the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”), which came into force in Ontario in 2010.
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.
October 31, 2014
This paper provides an overview of the law of causation as it pertains to a plaintiff that suffers from chronic pain as the result of an injury. It will begin with an analysis of recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence regarding how a plaintiff can establish factual causation through the “but for” test. It will then provide an analysis of legal causation, which has also been referred to as “remoteness”. In the remoteness analysis, the paper will clarify when chronic pain can be considered a foreseeable injury, and discuss the principle of the “thin-skulled plaintiff”. It will conclude by exploring how the courts apportion damages when faced with pre-existing injuries, and in particular, the principle known as the “crumbling skull”.
