PUBLICATIONS

The Divisional Court and Court of Appeal for Ontario erred when they respectively concluded that only in "exceptional circumstances" and "rare cases" would judicial review be available for questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

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 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 ...

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...

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.

In Patterson v Peladeau, 2020 ONCA 137, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) considered whether Justice Hackland of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice erred in his decision when he turned down a request for declaring a mistrial based on a juror engaging in Internet research during jury deliberations...

On March 15, 2020, Chief Justice Morawetz released a Notice to the Profession advising that as a result of the pandemic, the Superior Court of Justice had adjourned all scheduled civil hearings, effective March 17, 2020.

The Notice to the Profession allows for the hearing of urgent and time-sensitive motions and a limited number of other matters...

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.

Updated June 2016 - The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Livent is complex in detail but simple in outcome. Auditors carry more responsibility when auditing publicly-traded corporations because the potential fallout from their negligence is greater.

The key legal and policy points arising from Livent appeal form the basis of this short case comment. While we largely agree with the court's decision, we also offer some constructive commentary in anticipation of a potential appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

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.

In a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corp. the SCC provided clarification pertaining to what may be considered a customary demand from defendants’ counsel during the course of settlement negotiations involving co-defendants who have reached settlement by way of Pierringer Agreements (“settling defendants”). In such contexts, defendants’ counsel have been known to request the terms of settlement, and on occasion, the settlement amount reached. In clear and explicit terms, the SCC in Sable enunciated the extent to which non-settling defendants are entitled to such information; and by extension, the extent to which plaintiff’s counsel may deny such requests.

On August 30, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal released the long awaited decision of Gordyukova v. Certas Direct Insurance Company.

In 2001, the claimant, Gordyukova, was involved in a MVA. She sought statutory accident benefits from her insurer. After an unsuccessful FSCO mediation regarding her entitlement to medical benefits, she issued a Statement of Claim in 2002 seeking damages and a declaration that she was entitled to continued accident benefits.

Courts are sensitive to the increasingly international nature of business and the inextricable links between connected corporate entities. International business entities should be aware of this decision and note the liberal approach to requests for judicial assistance. This case is significant because it confirms the broad powers of our courts to enforce letters rogatory and compel corporations within Ontario to produce and appear in U.S. proceedings, notwithstanding that the corporation is not a party the proceedings. Details...

Rougoor v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 99 O.R. (3d) 139, involved an action which arose as a result of a dirt-bike incident that occurred in Florida. The appellant was insured under a standard automobile policy with the respondent. Her policy of insurance with the respondent, listed, among other family-owned vehicles, one off-road dirt bike of which she was listed as the principal driver. The appellant was also listed as a secondary driver for another off-road dirt bike under the same policy of insurance.

In ACE INA Insurance v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 2009 CarswellOnt 1668 (Ont. S.C.J.), the claimant initially applied to the driver’s insurer, the Co-operators, for payment of accident benefits. However, the Co-operators took the matter to arbitration and argued that, under the “company car” provision, the claimant was a named insured under the ACE policy which made ACE solely responsible for his accident benefits claim. The arbitrator agreed with the Co-operators and ACE appealed the decision.