PUBLICATIONS

Hemmings v Peng - the issue of remoteness of damage (“legal causation”) in the context of a medical malpractice claim. 

This is an update further to the first publication in July 2021 of the same name.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion cannot be used to recover damages from a "database defendant" if the information being stored is accessed by independent third-party hackers. A database defendant is one who, "for commercial purposes, collected and stored the personal information of others."

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.

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) can apply to not-for-profits. PIPEDA applies to organizations that collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities. While commercial activities may seem to be a blanket statement indicating that PIPEDA applies only to for-profit corporations, the relevant authorities suggest otherwise.

The appellant in this matter operates a commercial bakery located inside of a shopping mall. The ice storm did not cause any physical damage to the shopping mall or to the bakery, but the resulting power outage caused spoilage within the bakery. Appellant failed to show...

This case involves two accidents involving two recreational off-road vehicles – an all-terrain vehicle (“ATV”) and a dirt bike – heard together because they raise the same jurisdictional issue at law.... The issue before the Court was whether Ontario's statutory accident benefits regime applies differently if the subject accident occurs outside of Ontario.

A duty of good faith is foundational to nearly every contract of insurance, imposing on all parties a duty to act fairly and in good faith in their dealings with one another. In Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the reciprocal duty of good faith, a breach of which would constitute an “independent actionable wrong” compensable through the imposition of punitive damages.

Ontario's Conservative government recently proposed Bill 100, also known as the Protecting What Matters Most Act, which primarily addresses new budget measures. Also contained within the Bill, however, is the proposed repealing of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act [PACA] which was enacted in 1990 and governs how litigation is commenced against the Provincial Crown. It will be subsequently replaced with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act [CLPA]. The CLPA proposes substantial changes to Crown liability, including limitations thereon, and sets out the procedural rules that will apply in proceedings against the Crown.

Product liability law in Canada is governed by the common law in all provinces and territories except Quebec which is a civil law jurisdiction. While there are some differences in the legislation and case law across the common law jurisdictions, the law is fairly similar. The answers provided in this chapter are based on product liability law in the common law jurisdictions of Canada although some references to Quebec civil law are also included.