RESOURCES

In its recent decision of Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada v. SNIC, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") considered the priority of a travel policy and auto policy to pay out-of-province medical expenses. Both insurers claimed they were excess to each other, with the travel insurer relying upon the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling in RBC Travel Insurance Company v. Aviva Canada Ltd. ("RBC Travel"), which limited the application of section 268(6) of the Insurance Act (which legislates all other insurance policies to be "excess" insurance to auto policies). However, the auto insurer's counsel (Michael Kennedy with McCague Borlack LLP) successfully argued that RBC Travel should be distinguished, resulting in the auto policy being held to be excess due to section 268(6).

The Court recently addressed the contentious issue of whether a litigant, in the course of a civil action, can obtain disclosure of the last known contact information of a municipality's former employees who might reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the occurrences in issue in the action, where access to that information would otherwise be restricted by provincial privacy legislation.

This case arose out of injuries sustained by an individual when ice allegedly fell from an above canopy onto her head as she was exiting a grocery store. The plaintiff sued the property owner (represented by Michael Kennedy at McCague Borlack LLP), who in turn sued its winter maintenance contractor for contribution and indemnity pursuant to a hold harmless clause in its contract.

Every year, Kathryn Stroscher, MB's HR Manager, hosts a "Take Our Kids to Work" Day, showing them around the office, city resource libraries, and the courthouse. Thanks Kat!

New Case Study - In the construction industry, where a tangled web of inter-related contracts can be the norm

Chris Dias was invited to engage on a panel of experts from private practice and government lawyers regarding in-firm interview strategies and tips to South Asian Law students in Ontario.

New Case Study - Hemmings v Peng - the issue of remoteness of damage (“legal causation”) in the context of a medical malpractice claim.