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 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...

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.

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.

Michelle Constance Moore (“Moore”) married Lawrence Anthony Moore (“the deceased”) in 1979. They had three children and cohabited until December 1999. The deceased began living together with Risa Lorraine Sweet (“Sweet”) in her apartment in the summer of 2000, and they cohabited until his demise on June 20, 2013. In the interim, Moore and the deceased were divorced in October 2003.

In October 1985, while married to and cohabiting with Moore, the deceased obtained a life insurance policy in the amount of $250,000. Moore was named the beneficiary, but was not made an irrevocable beneficiary pursuant to certain provisions in the Insurance Act (Ontario).

The issue is whether the proceeds of the life policy upon the death of the deceased were payable to the original beneficiary (who continued to pay the policy premiums) or the new beneficiary.

One of the hardest decisions to make is when to deem an elder relative incapable of caring for themselves independently. When does a duty arise on behalf of an adult child to supervise an elderly relative who is living independently? This question and its possible ramifications provide an opportunity to revisit the case of Morrison, et al. v. Hooper and v. Young, et al.

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.

The British Columbia Adoption Act¹ and Adoption Regulation² provide adopted children with access to medical and social information about their biological parents. But the same legislation and its associated regulations fail to include children conceived through sperm or egg donors, keeping them from accessing this information.

In a groundbreaking ruling, the Court ruled that certain provisions within this legislation discriminate against donor offspring vis-à-vis adopted children, even though both groups have similar needs for information about biological parents...