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.

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.

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...

This 2019 decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal was the third in a trio of appeals regarding the topic of disengaging assets owned by insolvent entities subject to a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) proceeding from assets owned by other affiliated entities that were not insolvent.

In Huma v. Mississauga Hospital, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action against 14 physicians and two hospitals, alleging to have suffered significant damages as a result of the professional wrongdoing of same. The Statement of Claim stated that the plaintiffs were self-represented. Upon receipt of the Claim, the defendants defended the action.

Months later, having heard nothing from the plaintiffs, the defendants inquired as to whether the plaintiffs were willing to dismiss the action...

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.

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.

As we navigate through closed businesses, disruptions to global supply chains and potential food shortages, the question will arise as to whether we were adequately prepared for dealing with this pandemic...

The question arises of whether the directors and officers of a corporation will have any liability for failing to adequately plan for the re-opening of business during this current pandemic wave and any subsequent waves.

In Alizadeh v Ontario (Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks) (“Alizadeh”), the Court highlighted the high evidentiary burden on rebutting a presumption of management and control by a director in a Director's Order, emphasizing the importance of meeting environmental protection objectives.

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.

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.

In Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the defence to the tort of conversion under s. 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act. The judges split 5-4, ultimately upholding the recent jurisprudence on the test for non-existing or fictitious payees instead of returning to a purely objective approach, as suggested by the dissenting judges.

The dispute arose from the fraudulent actions of Teva's finance manager. 

Directors and officers, acting as a manager of a condominium, have a number of obligations and responsibilities that they are required to carry out. Section 37 of the Condominium Act, 1998 sets out the standard of care which directors and officers are held to...

Directors and officers, acting as a manager of a corporation, have a number of duties and responsibilities that they are required to carry out. These duties are largely set in place to protect the interests of shareholders and other individuals who are not shareholders but nevertheless have a stake in the corporation, such as creditors.1 While most of these duties were established at common law, the majority of Canadian jurisdictions have codified them.2 Often times, if these duties are not met, directors and officers will be personally liable. A finding of liability will often result in remuneration to the corporation.

The following paper will outline the main duties that directors and officers have. Further, the following article will examine the liability that will ensue for the breach of such duties.

As a means of attracting and retaining qualified directors and officers, corporations have chosen to shield their directors and officers from personal liability. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that protection from liability is necessary to promote entrepreneurialism.

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.

Crisis communication is a strategic component of an organization's overall operational response to a crisis. The significance of the communication plan, in the over all crisis management model, is many times under estimated. During a crisis, effective messaging to shareholders, stakeholders and the public, can be determinative as to how an organization's reputation, ie. it's brand and image, will be maintained. In addition, any crisis represents the potential for findings of liability down the road. As such, it is crucial to ensure that the messages of today never become the evidence of tomorrow, which will be used against the insured at a trial in the future.