Articles 2024

There were quite a few substantive decisions of the Court of Appeal released this week. Topics covered this week included another round of litigation in the Indian Residential School Settlement, vexatious litigants, the setting aside of an order granting summary judgement in the context of a shareholder’s agreement involving a right of first refusal, limitation periods, family law.

This edition of the Insider is titled 'Who knew?". Articles by Marc Kestenberg and Kevin Schoenfeldt of Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP, Jacqueline King and Matilda Lici of Shibley Righton LLP, and Cameron Fiske of Milosevic Fiske LLP, share little known practice points that could be a lifesaver on your next file. Enjoy!

Examinations for Discovery are a fundamental step in litigation. A party is entitled to examine a corporate representative with knowledge of the events at issue. As Jacqueline L. King and Matilda Lici of Shibley Righton LLP explain, it may not be so simple.

Beware of Rule 49 offers that may remain open even though they may have been rejected or there has been a counteroffer. Marc Kestenberg and Kevin Schoenfeldt of Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP explain how Rule 49 offers derogate from common law rules of contract.

In this article, Cameron Fiske discusses the surprising result that plaintiffs cannot add LawPRO to professional liability claims as a party, thus potentially preventing recovery for meritorious claims where the defendant lawyer has been denied coverage or has failed to report the claim.

Please find below our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for the week of October 26, 2020.

There were only three substantive decisions released by the Court of Appeal this week. In Paulpillai Estate v. Yusuf, the Court reviewed in detail the factors to be considered in an analysis of whether an order is final or interlocutory for the purposes of determining the proper appeal route. Other topics covered this week included bank negligence, and building code violations. Wishing everyone a pleasant weekend.

There were only two substantive civil decisions release by the Court of Appeal for Ontario this past week. Both related to the enforcement of settlements, one of a debt, the other of a medmal claim.

Following are this week’s summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The decisions were all fairly short. Topics covered included prescriptive easements, breach of contract, family law (support), the approval of a settlement and contingency fee agreement in a personal injury matter and security for costs.

In Becker, the Court found the trial judge made no error by not considering an alternate theory that, though not raised and developed at trial, was never formally abandoned. In Toronto Std Condo Corp, the Court clarified that claims within the scope of an arbitration agreement must be arbitrated. This case also addressed stare decisis. Other interesting cases covered pre-trial procedure where a decade-old claim was further delayed due to COVID-19, and introduction of fresh evidence on appeal.