Introduction In Thorman v. McGraw,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified section 137.1(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act and further narrowed the class of public expression deemed worthy of protection under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation. Background In December 2013, the respondent entered into an agreement with the appellants to renovate her bathroom. The respondent was … Continued
Insights
& Commentary
Insights list
Now is the Winter of Our Discontent: ONCA Settles How Long Winter Contractors Should Take to Apply Salt, Reiterates Duty of Care Separate from Contractual Duties
Now is the Winter of Our Discontent:[1] ONCA Settles How Long Winter Contractors Should Take to Apply Salt, Reiterates Duty of Care Separate from Contractual Duties By: Michael A. Valdez, Stieber Berlach LLP Introduction In the recent decision of Musa v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 255,[2] the Ontario Court of Appeal offers clear guidance as … Continued
The Question of Coverage for Innocent Passengers in Stolen Vehicles: A Review of the 2023 Ontario Court of Appeal Decision in Burnham v Co-operators General Insurance Company
By Thomas Russell Background On August 25, 2014, Joshua Burnham was asleep in the back of a stolen pickup truck when it was involved in a motor vehicle accident, tragically killing the driver and front-seated passenger of the vehicle.[1] Arising out of this horrible situation was the question of who should cover the damages that … Continued
by Thomas Russell
Causation and Foreseeability in Case v Pattison: Negligent Inspections Conducted by an Intervening Party do not Negate the Liability of a Preceding Tortfeasor
By: Zachary Sherman Introduction In the May 2023 decision of Case v. Pattison,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ the Court”) provided clarification on the foreseeability and causation analysis to be applied where an intervening party negligently performs their duty to inspect the work of a preceding tortfeasor. In conducting their analysis, the Court concluded … Continued
Falling off the Priority Ladder: ONCA Denies Attempt to Import Causation Requirement into s. 268(2) of the Insurance Act, and Clarifies the Difference Between “Incident” and “Accident”
by Michael A. Valdez Introduction The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Ontario (Government and Consumer Services) v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company[1] stresses that there is no room for a causation analysis when interpreting the priority rules in s.268(2) of the Insurance Act. These priority rules are used to determine who is liable … Continued
The Ontario Court of Appeal Highlights Key Considerations in Bringing Jurisdictional Challenges: Breaking Down the Decision in Black & McDonald Limited v. Eiffage Innovative Canada Inc., 2023 ONCA 91
In this rapidly evolving age of globalization, interjurisdictional collaboration on projects has never been easier. By the same token, there has never been more potential for interjurisdictional disputes regarding those projects. When a court’s intervention becomes necessary, litigants must first solve the dilemma: which court? Three tests can be used to answer this question, and … Continued
by Grace Murdoch
From Settlement to Stay: The Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms the Importance of Prompt Disclosure of Settlement Information to Related Parties
In its recent decision, Skymark Finance Corporation v Ontario, 2023 ONCA 234[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal took the opportunity to comment on the importance of immediate disclosure of settlement minutes to other parties in an action and to clarify the meaning of the phrase “to change the entirety of the litigation landscape”. The Immediate … Continued
by Grace Murdoch
When are Insurers Required to Provide Medical Reasons for the Denial of Statutory Accident Benefits?
An insurer may discontinue an insured’s entitlement to benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule[1] (“the SABS”) pursuant to any of the specified grounds enumerated under section 37(2). If the insurer determines that the insured is ineligible for benefits on the basis of any of these grounds, section 37(4) requires the insurer to provide notice, … Continued
Vitriol or Value? ONCA Provides Direction on Anti-SLAPP Analysis
Introduction In Thorman v. McGraw,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified section 137.1(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act and further narrowed the class of public expression deemed worthy of protection under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation. Background In December 2013, the respondent entered into an agreement with the appellants to renovate her bathroom. The respondent was … Continued