In his infamous article, “The Sharing Revolution – It's About More Than Just Getting Twice the Value For Half the Cost”, Paul Z. Pilzer, an American economist and self-proclaimed ‘social entrepreneur', discusses a phenomenon he refers to as “the sharing revolution”. He calls it the most significant change in the history of the Western world since the nineteenth century when the creation of affordable automobiles forever shaped our society. Mr. Pilzer argues that Uber is only a part of this Sharing Revolution in which everything – how we drive, what we eat, where we sleep – is becoming shared by more than one individual in order to halve the cost. It is this sharing revolution that, according to Mr. Pilzner, will surpass our conventional service providers, will allow for cheaper goods and services and ultimately revolutionize our society.
October 16, 2017
Over the years, Canadian courts have spent considerable time answering the question: “whether an insured's negligence while using or operating a motor vehicle has ‘caused' – in its recognized legal sense – the injuries sustained by the victim.”1 Now that Uber has revolutionized the way we transport passengers to their chosen destinations, this will inevitably add to the number of vehicle-for-hire on the road. Given this increase, we can expect an escalation of lawsuits involving the liability for vehicles-for-hire. Some of these lawsuits will involve Uber driver's liability. When these circumstances arise, the Courts will have to decide what principles to apply. The cases discussed will provide some guidance as to how the courts may deal with these issues in the future.
Autonomous vehicles are defined as self-driving vehicles capable of sensing their environment using artificial intelligence, sensors and GPS coordinates to drive themselves without human input.1 However, not all cars with autonomous features necessarily operate on the same level of automation. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International issued a standard classification for defining the various levels of automation in a car. They have identified 6 levels in total, from 0-5...
The recent LAT decision in 16-000218 v. Aviva Insurance broadens the definition of the term “accident” as per SABS and potentially opens doors for accident benefits claims being brought forward that don't necessarily fit neatly into the classic category of what we are used to thinking about as an “accident”.
A seven-year old elementary school student suffering from cerebral palsy and quadriplegia was picked up by a school bus at her home. The driver was to take the applicant to school, but instead, with the applicant still in the vehicle, travelled to the driver's own house, got into a different vehicle, and left. The applicant remained in the school bus, alone and unattended, for approximately two hours...
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.
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?
August 10, 2017
The recent Ontario Superior Court decision, Lavender v Miller Bernstein,1serves as a reminder – and a warning – that the Canadian jurisprudence is beginning to recognize a cause of action in negligence emerging from a negligent misrepresentation where the representor owes a duty of care to the representee. In this case, an auditor was found liable for the substantial financial loss of a securities dealer's clients, though it was the security dealer who fraudulently misrepresented information to its clients.
The fact that the plaintiffs were non-clients of the defendant and may have not even been aware of the defendant's role at the time of the loss is irrelevant, broadening the scope of liability for future negligence claims alike.
The stage was set. The tug-of-war pitted 20 or so trailer renters against 20 or so cottage renters. Disaster ensued.
In Bonello v. Gores Landing Marina (1986) Limited, 2017 ONCA 632, the Plaintiff, Timothy Bonello ("Bonello"), sought relief from an injury arising from a game of tug-of-war.
Bonello brought an action against several parties, including the Marina, Davies Junior and Joseph Davies Sr. (“Davies Senior”), the principal of the Marina. In Bonello's claim, he asserted that the Marina and Davies Senior were negligent and also liable pursuant to the Occupiers' Liability Act. In addition, Bonello claimed that the defendants were vicariously liable for the negligent actions of Davies Junior. The Marina and Davies Senior responded with a summary judgment motion to dismiss the action.
August 04, 2017
August 02, 2017
Case Study: HMTQ v Philip Morris International, Inc., 2017 BCCA 69
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.
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?
In the recent decision of Wilson v Alharayeri,1 the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously found that directors and officers of a corporation can be personally liable for corporate oppression pursuant to section 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”). In doing so, Cóté J., writing for the Court, clarified the test for when personal liability may be imposed on corporate directors for oppression.
Ultimately, this decision broadens the application of the oppression remedy and exposes corporate directors and officers to a greater risk of personal liability.
July 15, 2017
Airbnb, and other similar businesses offering “Short Term Rentals”, are not presently regulated in any significant way in the Toronto area, despite the fact that its main competitors - hotels, and bed and breakfasts (“B&Bs”) - are regulated. However, the City of Toronto is moving towards creating regulations for Airbnb, with recommendations released in June 2017.
A less publicized grey area is the home insurance implications of a homeowner using their residence for Airbnb listings. Short Term Rentals of a residence are inconsistent with most standard home insurance policies.
