Stieber Berlach
  1. Home
  2. Insights
  3. A Great New Resource: Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario

A Great New Resource: Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario

A Great New Resource: Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario
Category:
  • Commentaries
Author:
Katherine Di ‎Tomaso Christian Breukelman
Date:

Stieber Berlach LLP is pleased to share an important new free textbook, Civil  Procedure and Practice in Ontario, which includes contributions from Katie Di Tomaso as an author of two chapters annotating sections 1-5 and 15-24 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and Christian Breukleman as an author of the chapter on Rule 29 of the Rules of Civil Procedure dealing with Third Party Claims.

CPPO is found at: https://lnkd.in/gppkpcp5

CPPO is a product of University of Windsor Faculty of Law Professor Noel Semple and 135 lawyer and jurist authors. Katie and Christian joined the author group to annotate the Rules of Civil Procedure, Courts of Justice Act, and Limitations Act, 2002.

We are proud that our lawyers devoted time and effort to a free, plain-language, accessible text to provide access to justice for all users of our civil justice system.  CPPO is an excellent resource for insurance professionals, insureds, lawyers, and judges.  Helping insurers and insureds navigate the law and our court system is important and is a goal Stieber Berlach LLP has worked towards for decades.

Check out CPPO and feel free to follow up with Katie or Christian with any questions about limitations law and third party claims.

Katherine Di ‎Tomaso Christian Breukelman

Insights & Commentary

Reporting Isn’t Claiming: The Ontario Court of Appeal on Notice Requirements for Statutory Accident Benefits - photo
  • Commentaries

Reporting Isn’t Claiming: The Ontario Court of Appeal on Notice Requirements for Statutory Accident Benefits

Written By: Gary Cerriku Reviewed By: Douglas Treilhard In Jakupovic v. Intact Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 651 (Jakupovic), the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified the notice requirement an insured must meet in order to claim Statutory Accident Benefits (“SABs”). Merely reporting a motor vehicle accident to an insurer is not notice of an intention to … Continued

by

Holding Back on Holding in Contempt: The Ontario Court of Appeal on Civil Contempt Proceedings - photo
  • Commentaries

Holding Back on Holding in Contempt: The Ontario Court of Appeal on Civil Contempt Proceedings

Written By: Avery Cameron Reviewed By: Grace Murdoch Introduction While the court’s use of civil contempt proceedings sends a strong message, it is not always the most appropriate mechanism to ensure parties are abiding by their legal obligations.  In the recent decision of Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario v. Ontario Association of Architects,[1] the … Continued

by

The Consequences of Breaking the “Inflexible Rule”: The Court of Appeal Ruling in Chubb Insurance Company of Canada v. Zurich Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 302 (CanLII) - photo
  • Commentaries

The Consequences of Breaking the “Inflexible Rule”: The Court of Appeal Ruling in Chubb Insurance Company of Canada v. Zurich Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 302 (CanLII)

Written by Jason Taggart Reviewed by Grant Ferguson Introduction The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada v. Zurich Insurance Company, [1] (“Chubb v. Zurich”) raises the risk of insurer’s paying accident benefits permanently if they do not comply with an increasingly “inflexible rule”. That rule: “pay now dispute later,” has … Continued

by

Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Public Interest Threshold in Anti-SLAPP Motions - photo
  • Commentaries

Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Public Interest Threshold in Anti-SLAPP Motions

By: Danika Osborne Reviewed by: Katie Di Tomaso INTRODUCTION The Court of Appeal for Ontario (“ONCA”) in Rajic v. MacDonald, 2026 ONCA 288 clarified the interpretation of the “public interest” requirement under s. 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act (“CJA”) in anti-SLAPP motions. The ONCA held that the motion judge applied a restrictive approach … Continued

Ontario Court of Appeal Rules that Actions Against Barrick Gold Cannot Proceed in Ontario on the Basis of Forum Non Conveniens. - photo
  • Commentaries

Ontario Court of Appeal Rules that Actions Against Barrick Gold Cannot Proceed in Ontario on the Basis of Forum Non Conveniens.

Written by Dimitris Logothetis Reviewed by Rovena Hajdëri INTRODUCTION In Matiko John v. Barrick Gold Corporation,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether actions brought by Tanzanian individuals arising from alleged human rights abuses at a gold mine in Tanzania should proceed in Ontario or be stayed and heard in Tanzania. The Court dismissed the … Continued

by

All News