Articles & Publications

Search Articles & Publications

Expert Evidence May Not Trump in Summary Judgment: Cases Case Study: Haley v Stepan
by Michael Kennedy
December 16, 2020

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 ...


2 Insurance Policies, 1 Insured: Who Defends the Action, Who Pays the Costs of the Defence, and Who Controls the Defence? Case Study: Markham (City) v. AIG
by Van Krkachovski and Ryan Smith
December 03, 2020

This was updated in December 2020 after appeal.

This was a dispute between AIG Insurance Company of Canada and Lloyd's Underwriters in respect of the duty to defend a claim brought against the City of Markham.

The City rented a hockey rink to the Markham Waxers Hockey Club and associated entities. A young boy was injured while attending a game at the hockey rink. He sued the City, Hockey Canada and the Waxers for damages resulting from his injuries.


Legal Liabilities and the Transmission of COVID-19: What you need to know about Bill 218
by Jessica Grant
December 02, 2020

On November 20, 2020, Bill 218, entitled “Supporting Ontario's Recovery and Municipal Election Act, 2020” (“the Act”) received Royal Assent.1 The Act provides at section 2(1) that:

No cause of action arises against any person as a direct or indirect result of an individual being or potentially being infected with or exposed to coronavirus (COVID-19) on or after March 17, 2020, as a direct or indirect result of an act or omission of the person if...


Enforceability of Settlements in the Context of Self-Represented Plaintiffs - Case Study: Huma v. Mississauga Hospital
by Jessica Grant and Michelle Isenstein
November 24, 2020

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...


So you want to amend a pleading? Not so fast! Featured - Case Study: McConnell v. Fraser
by Eric W.D. Boate
November 06, 2020

In McConnell v. Fraser, McCague Borlack LLP successfully opposed the Plaintiff's motion to amend his Statement of Claim to add a new cause of action outside the limitation period.

The issues before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice were as follows...


Protecting Contractors is Paramount - Case Study: Urbancorp Cumberland 2 GP Inc.
by Howard Borlack
November 06, 2020

In Ontario, the provincial legislation shows a commitment to protecting contractors and subcontractors by enabling them to collect outstanding balances owing for services and materials through the use of construction trusts, holdbacks and liens. This case confirms this commitment and is a helpful decision for provincial contractors.


Can LAT Award Punitive Damages? Featured Case Study

On September 23, 2020, the License Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) released a ruling that it does not have jurisdiction to award punitive damages.

The Applicant filed a motion to the LAT requesting that a claim for punitive damages be added as an issue in dispute on the basis of an alleged privacy breach.


Do Ontario Insurance Laws Have Extraterritorial Effect? Revisiting Unifund v ICBC in the 2020 case of Travellers v. CAA, 2020 ONCA 382
by Michelle Isenstein
October 19, 2020

In the case of Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, a family insured under an Ontario motor vehicle policy, issued by Unifund, was driving a rental car in British Columbia when they were struck by a tractor-trailer insured by ICBC under a British Columbia insurance policy. The insureds sued in British Columbia and were awarded $2.5 million. Unifund, in turn, brought suit against ICBC with reference to section 275 of Ontario’s Insurance Act and sought to recover the benefits it had paid out to the family under the SABS.

The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada which found... 


LAT Reconsideration Request Due to Error of Law
by Catherine A. Korte
October 15, 2020

In the recent reconsideration decision of 2020 ONLAT 19-006032/AABS, McCague Borlack LLP was successful in having the applicant’s request for reconsideration dismissed. Vice Chair Farlam considered the request for a reconsideration of her Decision released on May 14, 2020 ("Decision")  in “which the applicant was barred from proceeding with her application to determine her entitlement to non-earner benefits ("NEBs") because she failed to attend the respondent’s s. 44 independent examination ("IE")”.


New Financial Support for Workers Relying on Government Benefits during the COVID-19 Pandemic
by Martin Smith and Carly Jacuk
October 14, 2020

Many Canadians felt panic over the last month as the expiry date for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) loomed. As of October 3, 2020, Canadian workers who were relying on the CERB for financial support saw this benefit come to an end.

However, in response to this looming expiry date, the House of Commons sprung in to action on September 29, 2020 to unanimously pass Bill C-4: An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19.

Bill C-4 was also quickly passed by the Senate, and it received Royal Assent on October 2, 2020.


Jury Questions: When to Ask for Reasons - Case Study: Cheung v. Samra 2020 ONSC 4904
by Michael Kennedy
September 28, 2020

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...


The Court exercises its "Fact Finding Powers" - Case Study: Carmichael v. GSK Inc.
by Howard Borlack
September 26, 2020

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...


In the Wake of Waksdale: A Recent Decision with Serious Consequences for Ontario Employers
by Martin Smith and Carly Jacuk
September 18, 2020

When it comes to claims for wrongful dismissal, without cause termination provisions have received almost all of the attention in recent years.

However, in the wake of a recent landmark decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario (“ONCA”), employers should now be turning their attention to the other portions of the termination provisions in their non-unionized employees’ contracts.


Striking jury notices during the COVID-19 Pandemic When is it more likely to happen?
by Alan S. Drimer and Ryan R. Taylor
September 15, 2020

Access to well-functioning justice and court systems are fundamental to a just and fair Canadian society. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has created challenges that have impacted the Canadian justice system.

Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has struck civil juries in two personal injury actions...


Priority dispute determined by financial dependency: Featured Case Study: TD Insurance and Intact Insurance
by Howard Borlack
September 01, 2020

In TD Insurance and Intact Insurance, McCague Borlack LLP successfully argued that Intact Insurance, not TD insurance, had priority to pay statutory accident benefits to a claimant for personal injuries sustained in an October 30, 2017, motor vehicle accident.

The question before Arbitrator Bialkowski was whom a 17-year-old claimant was principally financially dependent on – the claimant's father (Intact) or the claimant's stepmother (TD). To complicate matters, the claimant was a passenger in the vehicle owned by her stepmother and had recently moved from her biological mother's home to reside with her father and stepmother at the time of the accident.