Channels
- Practice Area
- Administrative Law
- Admiralty & Maritime Law
- Advertising Law
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- AmLaw 200 Blogs
- Antitrust Law
- Civil Rights & Privacy Law
- Consumer Law
- Corporate & Commercial Litigation
- Criminal Law
- Divorce & Family Law
- Education Law
- Election Law & Political Commentary
- Electronic Discovery
- Employment & Labor Law
- Environmental Law
- General Counsel Blogs
- Immigration Law
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property Law
- International Law
- Judiciary Law
- Media, Entertainment & Sports Law
- Law Firm Management & Legal Marketing
- Personal Injury & Medical Law
- Probate & Estate Planning
- Real Estate & Construction Law
- Tax & Financial Law
- Technology
- Whistleblower Law
- Law School
Recent Articles
Owner “Relinquished Dominion and Control” of Car, But Her Consent to Possession by Driver Still Necessary?
In Seegmiller v. Langer, Justice George R. Strathy reviewed the law with respect to when the owner of an automobile will be liable when someone else drives it and is involved in an accident. His reasons contain a useful review of the law concerning consent to possession of a vehicle and make it...
Limitation Period for MVA Pecuniary Claims Follows That of Non-pecuniary Claims Says Superior Court
Hard on the heels of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Grewal v. Ivany, released last Friday, Mr. Justice Paul Perell has delivered reasons in Ng v. Beline that address one of the issues considered in Grewal: in personal injury claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, are claims for ...
C.A. Says “One in Four” Chance of Avoiding Accident Doesn’t Meet Causation Threshold
In a brief but interesting decision handed down today, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by a third party who had been found liable at trial. The trial judge had found had that tortfeasor not been negligent, another tortfeasor’s chances of avoiding an accident would have been increased by...
C.A. Opens Door to Multiple Limitation Periods in MVA Cases
In Grewal v. Ivany, released last week, the Court of Appeal left open the possibility that a claim for pecuniary damages in an MVA action might be prescribed at the end of two years, even though the discoverability principle has postponed the commencement of the same limitation period for a...
C.A. Upholds Dismissal of Third Party Claim Against Plaintiff’s Lawyer
[The misdirected link to the reasons in this case has now been repaired, as has the rather embarrassing confusion of John Laskin with Bora Laskin, all courtesy of our eagle-eyed friend (well, he didn't have to be too eagle-eyed on this occasion) David Cheifetz. All we can say is that eventually,...
Subrogation by Landlord’s Insurer Permitted Despite Tenant’s Rent Being Applied to Landlord’s Insurance Premiums
1044589 Ontario Inc. (Nantucket Business Centre) dealt with the frequently-litigated issue of the right of a landlord’s insurer to advance a subrogated claim against a tenant. Here, Madam Justice Ruth E. Mesbur held that the landlord’s insurer was entitled to proceed with the subrogated...
Judge Applies “But For” in Slip and Fall Case
In Cartner v. Burlington (City), a recent slip and fall action, Mr. Justice Michael Quigley found for the plaintiffs. In doing so, he applied the “but for” test of causation that was endorsed by the Supreme COurt of Canada in Resurfice v. Hanke. The case involved a slip and fall...
Judge Says Plaintiff Not Required to Pursue Claim Against Tortfeasor As Condition of Accessing Uninsured Motorist Coverage
Ontario auto insurers might be surprised to learn that the Insurance Act and the standard auto policy do not require persons claiming against the uninsured motorist coverage to pursue anyone whose negligence might have contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries or “to pursue anybody at all;...
C.A. Adopts Broad Interpretation of “Subcontractor” in CGL “Your Work” Exclusion
This afternoon, the Court of Appeal released its decision in AXA Insurance v. Ani-Wall Concrete Forming. (We previously commented here on the decision of Perell J. from which the appeal was taken.) The issue in the case was whether Ani-Wall was entitled to indemnity from AXA, its liability insurer,...
Judge Says Offer Made “Without Prejudice” Not An Offer Under Rule 49
Roma Construction (Niagara) Ltd. v. Dykstra Bros. Roofing (1992) Limited was a dispute about roofing deficiencies. The plaintiff had served an offer to settle in a letter that was marked, “Without Prejudice”. The defendant had orally rejected the offer but, as the trial approached, more ...
