In Maccaroni v. Kelly (2011 ONCA 441), the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside an order dismissing an insured's action against her insurer, ING, for damages claimed pursuant to an OPCF 44R underinsured motorist endorsement. In this particular case, both the tortfeasor's insurance policy and the appellant's OPCF 44R endorsement had coverage limits of $1,000,000.00.
In the original action arising from the motor vehicle accident at issue, Co-operators General Insurance Company added itself as a statutory third party pursuant to s. 285 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. I.8. Co-operators took the position that its insured (the tortfeasor) was in breach of the statutory conditions of his policy and that, as a result, the insured's policy limits were reduced to $200,000.00 pursuant to s. 258(11) of the Insurance Act.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently delivered a decision interpreting the pollution exclusion commonly found in commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies. Such exclusions typically preclude coverage for the insured's liability for the release or escape of pollutants at or from the insured's premises.
Shipment of goods from one place to another involves complex networks of players, from shippers to cargo carriers, load brokers to stevedores, consignors to freight intermediaries, and so on. Given the volume and value of goods being shipped daily across the country and the world, international and domestic laws have been developed in order to ensure that the interests of the various parties are protected in the event that the goods are damaged while in transit.
The proliferation of international trade and commerce has led to increasingly complex product liability litigation with potential parties located across all parts of the globe. Simply stated, a person could be hurt in Ontario by a product designed in Germany, sold in Pennsylvania, and assembled in India with parts manufactured in Japan. With each party in the chain of commerce a potential defendant, there are important jurisdictional issues which arise in the product liability context.
In cases of multi-jurisdiction litigation, three issues frequently arise...
It is common practice for schools to offer enhancements to the curriculum in the form of field trips and extra curricular activities. These trips and activities may have certain risks associated with them depending on the activity. Examples of activities with risks associated are football, rugby, ski trips and climbing.
Two options to manage the risks associated with these types of activities are waivers and permission forms.
Difficult and tenacious litigants are individuals who are exceedingly dedicated and vindictive in their litigation. They are individuals who often have multiple actions against the same or different individuals or corporate entities, frequent appeals, actions against employees of corporations, actions that are obviously not going to succeed, frequent interlocutory motions and failing to pay costs. These individuals in many cases, are unrepresented or if represented, they may frequently change counsel. This type of litigant will become a source of frustration and for opposing counsel and they will increase the cost of the litigation. It is important for counsel to have a strategy to dispose of this type of claim expeditiously.
Whether an adult child who has completed a post-secondary degree and contemplating a second post-secondary degree will be considered a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act and eligible for child support is one of the most highly contested issues with respect to child support in family law.
This issue essentially dictates when a parent's obligation to pay child support ends.
In drafting the Occupiers’ Liability Act (“the Act)”, the Ontario Legislature balanced its concern for the safety of people entering a premises with the competing interest that occupiers be encouraged to allow for recreational use of their property.
Because of these opposed considerations, Section 4(4) of the Act provides for a lower standard of care where occupiers allow individuals to make recreational use of their premises.
March 02, 2011
The inherent risks of active sports such as skiing give rise to a large number of personal injury claims each year. Managing the risk posed by such claims is a key concern of ski resorts. Ski resorts have developed a number of important and evolving legal strategies to limit their exposure to such claims. These strategies have evolved with the changes in the law over time and continue to grow with it.
March 02, 2011
A spectator that becomes injured during the course of a sporting event will generally commence an action against the occupier of the facility where the sporting event was held. Occasionally, the action will include the individual participant, team, league, or others that may be appropriate in the circumstances.
In determining whether an occupier has in fact discharged its duty, the courts take into consideration the nature of the sporting event, any inherent risks, and whether the spectator can foresee those risks. The trier of fact may also rely on expert testimony to provide information on what the industry standard is for safety precautions in a given sport.
March 02, 2011
In the context of sports camps, the risk for insureds lies in claims made against them in negligence. Specifically, insureds are at risk of patrons at a day camp making allegations that they failed to fulfill the duty of care owed to them to keep them safe while engaging in a potentially dangerous activity offering horseback riding.
The Canadian chapter from the text entitled Product Recall has been updated for 2011. The text is a comparative analysis of product recall legislation in 26 jurisdictions worldwide. Product liability law in Canada is governed by the common law in all provinces and territories except Quebec which is a civil law jurisdiction. While there are some differences in the legislation and case law across the common law jurisdictions, the law is fairly similar. The answers provided in this chapter are based on product liability law in the common law jurisdictions of Canada although some references to Quebec civil law are also included.
February 28, 2011
In Dominion of Canada v. Kingsway,1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed an insurer’s duty to defend in cases where an insured’s policy limits have been exhausted. The facts were such that a defendant’s policy limits of $200,000.00 were offered and accepted at mediation on the condition that a plaintiff with Family Protection coverage through Dominion could pursue her underinsured claim against her own insurer. Dominion would then receive an assignment of the judgment and could pursue the defendant personally for contribution.
February 28, 2011
In Jones v. Jenkins,1 an ING adjuster negotiated a settlement with a self-represented plaintiff. The plaintiff was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, but had not commenced an action against ING's insured, who was allegedly at fault. ING's adjuster directly corresponded with the plaintiff, requesting settlement proposals and making counter-proposals until a final agreement of $19,411.00 was reached and a release was signed. The plaintiff subsequently retained counsel and a Statement of Claim was issued. The defendant and his insurers argued that the signed release barred the proceeding.
When crafting an opening statement for trial, the opening statement is an opportunity to present your case and evidence to the jury and not an opportunity to attack the other party or make argument.
The purpose of this article is to discuss the decision in Spittal v. Thomas, [2006] O.J. no. 1617, where Justice Glass considered a motion for the judge to instruct a jury to correct improper remarks by plaintiff’s counsel in an opening address.
