The Supreme Court of Canada has recently considered the liability of institutional care facilities, school boards, and community service organizations for sexual abuse committed by their employees. The resulting decisions have broadened the circumstances under which organizations will be held liable for abuse. They have also affirmed the victim's right to recover from persons other than the actual wrongdoer.
Similarly, claims against landowners and property management companies for assaults occurring on their premises are becoming increasingly common. As a result, any organization that provides services to the public or is accessible by the public needs to carefully evaluate its operations and likely exposure to claims based upon abuse or assault.
Our Human Rights, Harassment, and Abuse Group assists clients in risk management by:
We also advocate for insurers and defend their insureds in courts and before tribunals throughout Ontario by providing excellent legal representation that is sensitive to the client's public reputation and standing concerns.
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 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...
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.