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 Ali v. City of Toronto, Master M.P. McGraw ruled on plaintiff's motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add a party as a defendant to the action. Master McGraw denied this motion on the basis that the winter maintenance contractor the plaintiff wished to add was immediately discoverable and as such it was beyond the limitation period to add the party.

In a recent Court of Appeal decision, the Court upheld the defendant occupiers' successful summary judgment motion in a trip-and-fall case. Despite the plaintiff having expert evidence stating an unsafe elevation in the floor caused him to fall, the Court of Appeal ...

On January 1, 2021, the amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure pursuant to O. Reg. 689/20 will take effect. The following is a summary of the key amendments.

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.

The following are some updates around civil matters in the Superior Court of Justice in the Central East Region. Please note they are all subject to change.

The interpretation of a corrosion exclusion was one of the major issues considered in the recent decision in MDS Inc. v Factory Mutual Insurance Company. For reasons outlined below, I believe the interpretation and determination regarding its applicability in the circumstances of the case were incorrect.

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.

The issue in this case was whether the plaintiffs ought to be required to conduct an examination out-of-court by videoconference, rather than in- person at a later date, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for negligently causing them to unjustly be found liable for securities fraud by the Ontario Securities Commission, among other causes of action. 

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.

Imagine the following scenario: A plaintiff sues to recover $150,000 in damages. The defendant refuses to pay anything and forces the plaintiff to trial. After a ten-day trial, the plaintiff is wholly successful and obtains $150,000 in damages, plus costs of $100,000 and disbursements of $50,000. The defendant who lost has to pay the plaintiff his/her damages and costs, as well as the defendant's legal costs of $100,000 and disbursements of $30,000. In other words, the cost of defending the plaintiff's claim cost the defendant $280,000 in costs and disbursements alone–a number nearly twice the amount of the plaintiff's damages. While costs are meant to discourage frivolous litigation, the costs should not be so disproportionate to the relief being claimed so as to lead to unfairness.

In its seminal decision of Westerhof v Gee Estate,1 the Court of Appeal for Ontario provided the general framework for the admissibility of expert evidence in Ontario. Specifically, it clarified the role of participant experts at trial and confirmed that compliance with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was not required for their evidence to be admissible, as opposed to the evidence of litigation experts. As the Court indicated, participant experts are witnesses, albeit ones with special skill, knowledge, training or expertise, who are not engaged by a party to form their opinions, and who do not form their opinions for the purpose of the litigation.

As we have developed greater and more rapid business relationships across greater distances, there has inevitably come with this trend a larger emphasis on cross-jurisdictional litigation. While Canadian common law is fairly uniform in its basic components, there are notable elements that have slight, yet potentially critical, differences. In this discussion, we will endeavour to identify some of the most important differences specifically between civil procedure in Ontario and British Columbia.

As a starting point, it is helpful to know that the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules are very similar to the Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario, so the vast majority of matters in BC will proceed in a similar fashion to the way they do in Ontario.

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.

In the recent decision of Caryk v Karlsson,1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to compel Erik Karlsson's wife to provide evidence relating to allegations that she was cyberbullied by the partner of one of her husband's former teammates. In doing so, Mullins J. provided an overview of the Norwich Order remedy, and found that the interests of justice would not be well served by granting such an Order. This decision is noteworthy because it confirms that the Norwich Order is an extraordinary form of relief that will only be granted in very limited circumstances. This holds true even in cases dealing with allegations of cyberbullying.

On September 17, 2018, Justice Coroza of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released his decision in Bucknol v. 2280882 Ontario Inc1(“Bucknol”),a motion for summary judgement dealing with commercial host liability and outlining the pillars of claims of negligence. Interestingly, Justice Coroza originally heard the motion in January of 2018 and reserved his decision. In June of 2018, counsel for the defendant (moving party) brought to his Honour's attention the May 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Rankin (Rankin's Garage & Sales) v. J.J (“Rankin”) and further written submissions were requested of counsel.

By way of background in Bucknol, the plaintiff was struck by a beer bottle that had been thrown by an unknown assailant at Classic Lounge Nightclub...

Because self-reports factor heavily into medical assessments for chronic pain, it can be very challenging to distinguish between plaintiffs or applicants that legitimately suffer from chronic pain and those who do not. The plaintiff's or applicant's credibility becomes a central issue in the litigation, and counsel often looks to medical experts for guidance. While it is possible to build a defence based on expert medical opinion, it helps to have additional evidence to tip the balance in favour of a successful defence. Surveillance, when properly gathered, can be an effective tool to impugn a plaintiff's or applicant's credibility and challenge the validity of his or her claim.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video is worth more than a million. This is why surveillance evidence in bodily injury actions is such a powerful and persuasive tool – a fact that has been recognized by judges, who are very careful when admitting surveillance into the record as substantive evidence.

In order for surveillance to be admissible as substantive evidence, the first hurdle it must satisfy is being accurate in truly representing the facts. The courts have been clear that a surveillance report must include...

The following is an overview along with the key takeaways on recent case law regarding the admissibility of surveillance and when surveillance should be disclosed in accident benefit disputes before the License Appeal Tribunal and tort claims.

Surveillance evidence is among the most powerful tools available to a defence lawyer and their client. Correctly deployed, surveillance can be a fatal blow to a plaintiff's claim. Triers of fact, jurors particularly, cannot help but be impacted by surveillance evidence. Numerous studies show that visual memory retention far exceeds audio recall. Due to the power of surveillance evidence relative to cost, many insurers have at least some experience in obtaining this form of evidence. Since the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Iannarella v Corbett, the tactical landscape for surveillance has changed and the use of surveillance evidence has been under court scrutiny.

Attempting to introduce surveillance as evidence at trial is becoming increasingly more challenging. In order to use surveillance as substantive evidence at trial, the Court has made it abundantly clear that certain requirements must be met.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has struck down the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography. The Appellant, Nathaniel John, in R v John, 2018 ONCA 702, successfully convinced three judges that imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence of six months imprisonment is grossly disproportionate to the conduct of a reasonably hypothetical offender, using, for example, a youth “sexting”.

Our previous article covered a pushing incident on a Toronto Catholic District School Board (“TCDSB”) playground in March 2015. Following our previous article, the mother of the injured boy discontinued the lawsuit in question. The TCDSB later discontinued their crossclaim against the two students. While some school boards, students, and parents may be relieved to hear this news, a discontinued claim should not lead them to believe similar claims will simply disappear in the future.

To what extent can sports clubs, facilities and leagues be held responsible for the violent outbursts of a player during a game?

The Ontario Court of Appeal in Da Silva v. Gomes, 2018 ONCA 610 recently upheld the principle that supervising authorities are generally not legally responsible for "a sudden unexpected event in the midst of an acceptable, safe activity."

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.

With the increasing interconnectivity of businesses to date, information is now exposed to a broad number of threats. Businesses need to ensure there is protection of information in order to prevent loss, unauthorized access or misuse. Businesses must have in place a process of assessing threats and risks to information and the procedures and controls to preserve the information.

There are three guiding principles...

The Federal Government of Canada has yet to set a date for the legalization of recreational cannabis in Canada. Current forecasts estimate that it will be legalized in the summer of 2018, but this may be optimistic. Once recreational cannabis is legalized, its sale and distribution will be regulated by the provinces leading to different rules province to province, like the regulation of alcohol.

Much ink has been spilled analyzing and assessing the macro impacts of the residential real estate market worldwide. Canada and its largest cities are no exception, particularly in Vancouver, Toronto and the surrounding areas. When the residential real estate market rises, many people, perhaps with the exception of first-time buyers, are joyful homeowners and investors. When the market turns and drops, it is not for the faint of heart.

In Gamoff v. Hu, 2018 ONSC 2172, Justice Edwards presided over the sad facts of how one family, desperate for their dream home, became embroiled in a bidding war and overextended their ability to finance the purchase price of that home. Regrettably, the tragic facts of this case are not uncommon.

The appeal decision in Ontario (Minister of Finance) v AXA Insurance1 is an important lesson for insurers who claim to have cancelled an insured's automobile policy, specifically when a priority dispute later arises.

Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Thomson v Portelance, 2018 ONSC 1278, reminded the Bar that a party to motor vehicle accident litigation in Ontario must schedule a mediation once requested.

In Thomson, Justice Firestone presided over a case conference requested by the plaintiff in a situation where the defendant refused to schedule mediation until after examinations for discovery were complete...

In the midst of a crisis, the common law Doctrine of Emergency is a defendant's saving grace.

When faced with a sudden emergency that a driver is not responsible for creating, he or she cannot be held to a standard of conduct of a reasonable driver in ordinary circumstances – the unique and exigent circumstances must be taken into account when measuring the appropriate standard of care and whether or not there was a breach.

On February 23, 2018, in a split-decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Isaac Estate v Matuszynska1 upheld a lower court's decision granting summary judgment and dismissing the action, where the Doctrine of Emergency was found to apply in a drug transaction that went horribly wrong.

Limitation periods, sometimes referred to as proscription periods, refer to the time that a party has to commence an originating court process. They are governed by provincial statutes.

The main purposes of limitation periods are to provide certainty and finality, as well as to help assure the cogency of evidence on which matters will be judged: see generally Graeme Mew, The Law of Limitations (1991) at 7- 8. These purposes were well expressed by the Ontario Law Reform Commission in its Report on Limitation of Actions (1969) at page 9...

This paper seeks to provide an introduction to vicarious liability in Canada, the applicability of joint and several liability, and the impact of these general principles in the collaborative care context. In so doing, we will review medical malpractice jurisprudence in which the court considered whether professionals and institutions should be held liable for the acts of others.

In recent years, there have been a number of developments in the law which have resulted in escalating damage awards, particularly in catastrophic injury cases. The paper will outline some of these developments relating to:

I. Future Care Costs;
II. Guardianship and Management Fees; and
III. Risk Premiums.

Canadian citizens, and those not as fortunate to live in Canada, have the perception that 'uniform publicly funded' medical-related services are available nationwide in Canada and are 'free'... that is what it is to be Canadian. However, contrary to popular belief, there is no unified single professional regulatory, or single-payer national healthcare system in Canada. To the extent that there is healthcare that is publicly funded in Canada, it is funded on a provincial or territorial basis [here-in-after collectively 'provincial' or 'province'] and supplemented with federal funds that are 'conditionally' transferred to the province.

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 the recent case of Wagner v Fellows,1 Mullins J. of the Superior Court found the defendant vehicle owner, Ms. Ley, not liable for the single-vehicle accident caused by her son under s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act R.S.O. 1990, c H-8 (“HTA”). In assessing this issue, which was one of many issues before her, Mullins J. determined that Mr. Fellows had operated his mother's vehicle without her implied consent.

On September 14, 2017, Justice Sanfilippo of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's occupiers' liability claim, stating that without objective evidence pointing to the cause of her slip and fall, the claim could not succeed.

The plaintiff, Mrs. Hamilton, a nine-year resident of an apartment building owned by the defendant, Toronto Community Housing Corporation (“TCHC”), alleged that on May 7, 2012, she slipped and fell in the 4th-floor hallway leading to her apartment unit...

Non-pecuniary damages (also called general damages) are awarded to a plaintiff that sustained a non-monetary loss. These damages are not capable of exact quantification. Examples of such losses include, inter alia, pain and suffering. 

On August 1, 2015, legislative reform to the Insurance Act2 took effect. The statutory deductible applicable to damages for a non-pecuniary loss was increased.

The amendments to the Insurance Act did not contain specified dates upon which the increased deductible and lower prejudgment interest rate were to come into effect. Naturally, the questions that arose from the above-described legislative changes were as follows...

Recently, the public learned of a lawsuit against two children regarding a schoolyard incident in 2015. With school back in session, what does this current state of affairs mean for students, school boards – and even parents moving forward? Furthermore, what should insurers be thinking about as children fill the halls and playgrounds for another year?

To the disappointment of many and the surprise of few, the Ontario Government has decided to provide access to recreational cannabis through a government corporation similar to the LCBO. Ontario plans to open 40 stores across the province by July 2018 when cannabis becomes legal with another 110 by summer of 2020. It also will allow for the purchase of cannabis online through the governing body's website. While this may sound sufficient, it is worth highlighting that there are over 650 LCBO locations throughout the province.

Case Study: HMTQ v Philip Morris International, Inc., 2017 BCCA 69

All hosts know there are several elements that need to be properly planned when hosting a social function: the company, the food, the music and, of course, the refreshments. With the anticipated legalization of recreational marijuana in Canada, however, could a social host face exposure if marijuana is provided and something unexpected happens?

The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently upheld an application judge's decision to deny the mayor and Town of Rainy River relief from the harassment of a local resident in its recent decision, Rainy River (Town) v. Olsen.

In this case, a local resident of the Town Rainy River had an interest in horticulture and town beautification. He began writing to the mayor and council with ideas concerning a variety of issues such as agriculture, gardening, and general community beautification. Unsatisfied with the responses he received, his communications to the mayor and council allegedly grew increasingly abrasive and insulting. On one occasion, he attended the mayor's workplace and verbally harassed her.

After the Event Insurance (“Trial Insurance”) is a type of insurance that protects personal injury plaintiffs against their own disbursements incurred and opposing counsel's costs if they are unsuccessful at trial. Generally, unsuccessful parties bear the responsibility of paying a, sometimes significant, portion of the successful side's legal costs in addition to their own. The availability of Trial Insurance changes the landscape of personal injury litigation for everyone involved. While the concept of Trial Insurance is relatively new in Ontario, it is already rapidly evolving and becoming more prevalent. How it Works...

The scope of an insurer's responsibility regarding the duty to defend and indemnify has increased. This increased responsibility can be observed with respect to an insurer's duties to an additional insured, an insurer's duties in a situation involving a conflict of interest, and an insurer's duties in a situation involving a breach of contract.

What is the duty to defend versus the duty to indemnify?

Commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies are primarily used to provide financial protection to an insured party in the event that it issued by a third party. CGL policies result in the insurer assuming two obligations towards the insured:...

Imagine trading peace of mind for a chance to give someone a piece of your mind. Welcome to “After The Event" (ATE) insurance policies – the instigators of the insurance policy world. In general, Legal Expense Insurance (LEI) products exist to provide coverage for various legal costs and disbursements during the litigation process. These products include “Before The Event" insurance, which provides coverage for a future incident, and “After The Event" insurance, which is obtained specifically to litigate an incident after it has already occurred.

Defamation law, mostly conceived in an old-media world, historically balanced one person's right to freedom of speech with another's to not have his or her reputation unfairly attacked. The emergence of social media has made it more difficult to navigate the application of these long-standing principles. Unlike the traditional letter to the editor, comments on social media can be posted instantly, often in the heat of emotion, and many people who post comments do so under the mistaken belief that they will remain anonymous. Social media has the ability to create a false sense of intimacy, as users may mistakenly believe they are only speaking to a small, well-known group of individuals...

Amongst the most challenging personal injury cases to defend are those where a Plaintiff's accident-related injuries are solely psychological in nature. As there is no objective evidence for defence lawyers to look to when attempting to verify or challenge a Plaintiff's account of their injuries or impairments caused by an accident, Defendants have no choice but to rely on the expertise of experts when attempting to determine the severity of a Plaintiff's psychological and emotional injuries and impairments.

The Supreme Court of Canada has released a decision that makes this determination that much more challenging for defence lawyers by finding that expert evidence of a recognized psychiatric or psychological illness is not required for a plaintiff to recover damages for mental injuries.

It is hoped that the recent appeal decision in MVACF and Barnes will shed some light on this turbulent, but interesting, area of accident benefits.

The issue, in this case, was whether the amendment applied to the Applicant for services provided after its effective date.

A recent decision emerging from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice will likely have a significant impact on the viability of waivers in the defence of personal injury actions in Ontario.

Although the ruling in Schnarr v Blue Mountain Resorts is under appeal, the effect of the decision in Schnarr on the enforceability of waivers in Ontario is profound.
 

As the access to and use of marijuana becomes increasingly legitimate and common, it is reasonable to assume that the businesses that operate within this environment will experience significant legal "growing pains". Specifically, the operational risks that companies within the marijuana space face are significant given the limited involvement of regulators, and the attributes commonly associated with consumption. As a result, it is not surprising to see the start of what we believe to be a significant volume of litigation targeting many of the largest players in the industry.

With the legalization of marijuana appearing more like a certainty than a possibility, legislators ought to be determining how best to address the increased societal risks associated with drug-impaired driving.

Currently, the Government has authorized a 12-part evaluation for drug impairment of motorists.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision in R v. Bingley that provided guidance to lower courts on how evidence of drug-impaired driving is to be admitted...

As physicians become more at ease in prescribing marijuana for medical purposes, it is reasonable to forecast an increase in the number of employees in the workplace with a prescription for the drug. This raises challenges for employers that have a duty to accommodate their "disabled employees" and further conflicts with an employer's desire for a drug-free environment.

With the release of the Marijuana Task Force Report that made recommendations associated with the potential framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis, the legalization of marijuana seems imminent. While the report made many recommendations, it left unanswered questions relating to how the justice system ought to deal with drivers impaired by marijuana ("drugged driving").

With the legalization of marijuana appearing to be more like an inevitability than a possibility, the options for consuming marijuana continue to expand. Individuals can now consume marijuana in a variety of different forms, including various edible products (baked goods, teas, oils and capsules, with more products being developed each month). As marijuana has the capacity to cause significant impairment, producers, distributors, and dispensers of both marijuana and marijuana-based edible products will likely be found to owe certain duties to consumers.

With the government's stated intention to legalize marijuana, and the current challenge with policing these new businesses, dispensaries and vapour lounges can now be found in many urban and suburban areas. While many of these cater to individuals with needs for medicinal marijuana and require prescriptions before dispensing, some dispensaries and vapour lounges are less scrupulous when selling marijuana or marijuana-based products to their customers. 

Pursuant to Rule 30.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party shall serve an affidavit of documents disclosing all documents within their knowledge, information and belief relevant to any matter in issue in the action that are in the party's possession, control or power.

We will focus on what needs to be included in the affidavit of documents for first party actions.

We have compiled a non-exhaustive list of considerations for the drafting of pleadings for first party actions between the insurer and insured...

Statutory conditions contained within the policy, relief from forfeiture, and limitation period issues, are examples of special considerations when dealing with first party claims...

In your drafting of a Statement of Claim, consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of bad faith against the insurer. If an insured can prove bad faith against an insurer on a first party claim, the court may award punitive damages against the insurer. However, in our experience, insurers react to a claim for bad faith in a different manner than to a claim for other damages, so you will ‘up the ante' if you plead bad faith... 

The insurance contract is a contract of utmost good faith. This duty is reciprocal. This duty not only requires insurers to respond to and investigate claims in good faith, but also requires insureds to present their claims in good faith. This duty of utmost good faith is an implied term of the insurance contract and should be maintained throughout every step of the claim process.

Insurer

The duty of good faith of the insurer towards the insured has two components...

Generally, an insurance policy will contain the following key information:...

An insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured. A ‘first party' is the party who is insured under an insurance policy and is often referred to as the policyholder or the insured. If an insured makes a claim directly against his/her own insurance company (the ‘insurer') in reliance on an insurance policy, this is referred to as a ‘first party claim'.

Some common examples of a first party claim are...

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.