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.
December 31, 2009
Point form information on claim resolutions strategies incliding early investigation, plaintiff productions, investigation and surveillance, experts, early settlement meeting, offer to settle, motion for summary judgment, meditation, bifurcation of trial, advance payment and appraisal of property claims.
Pastore v. Aviva, FSCO A04-002496, involved a claimant, Anna Pastore, who was a pedestrian involved in a motor vehicle accident on November 16, 2002. The matter proceeded to Arbitration on a number of issues including whether Ms. Pastore suffered a catastrophic impairment...
In Fourniev v. Coachman, the claimant was injured in an MVA on August 11, 2004. He applied to Coachman Insurance for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Schedule and Coachman concluded that he was not catastrophically impaired. The parties applied for Arbitration since they were unable to resolve their dispute through mediation. The issue in dispute was whether the claimant suffered a catastrophic impairment...
In the recent Ontario decision, Winckle v. Siodlowski, [2009] O.J. No. 4807 (Ont. S.C.J.)., Justice Hockin decided the applicability of the statutory deductible in a case where damages were assessed at exactly $100,000.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in Keam v. Caddey, 2010 ONCA 565, has awarded plaintiffs $40, 000 in additional costs after an insurer refused to participate in mediation prior to trial.
The plaintiff, in Tucci v. Pugliese, [2009] O.J. No. 2956, Maria Tucci, was seated in her kitchen when an uninsured motor vehicle driven by the defendant, Giuseppe Pugliese, ran into a wall of her house. The collision caused a sudden, loud bang and violent shaking of the house, which allegedly caused tremendous shock to the plaintiff and inflicted damage to the home estimated at between $85,000 and $100,000...
In Lockhard, the plaintiff Lockhard was injured in a single-vehicle accident when her vehicle was being driven by the defendant Quiroz with her consent. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff's vehicle was insured by the third party C.A.A. Insurance Co. (Ontario) ("CAA"). The plaintiff sued the driver for damages.
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.
December 31, 2009
In the Mustapha decision,1 the Supreme Court of Canada conclusively established the objective nature of the foreseeability test to be applied in the determination of causation in law or, as the issue is sometimes described, remoteness of damage, in claims for psychological injury. What it did not do, however, was set down ground rules for the type and quality of evidence suitable for that determination...
When accidents happen at ski lodges or other remote locations, decisions have to be made about when, how and to where victims are to be transported. The Province of Ontario’s guidelines on how these decisions are to be made and the way these guidelines are administered could subject the Province to a private law duty of care, the Court of Appeal has recently held.
In Tridan Developments Ltd. v. Shell Canada Products Ltd., 2002, CanLII 20789 (ON C.A.), the Court dealt with an appeal from an assessment of damages arising from the contamination of the respondent's Tridan Developments Ltd. property by a gasoline spill from the appellant's Shell Canada Products Ltd. neighbouring gas station.
In order to establish negligence where careless smoking is alleged to have caused a fire, there must be evidence that smoking occurred proximate to the time and place of the origin of the fire.
The issue of whether and in what circumstances a waiver is a defence to an action for negligence is important and complex. The recent case of Gallant v. Fanshawe College et al. articulates the court's considerations with respect to when a waiver is a defence to an action for negligence. Gallant outlines the factors considered by the court including, the circumstances in which the contract is signed, the intentions of the parties, and the type of activity that is involved.
November 30, 2009
A primary concern for the design professional has always been the length of time during which claims can be brought in respect of work performed. In some cases, including those involving latent defects, proceedings are commenced long after the work in issue has been completed.
