Articles

Anatomy of a Trial 2024 not only allowed participants to fulfill all of their annual Law Society of Ontario’s Continuing Professional Development (CPD) hours but also equipped them with essential skills for modern trial practice. This year’s theme emphasized the pivotal role that narrative plays in effectively communicating a client’s case to the decision-makers at trial. The enthusiasm generated by Anatomy of a Trial 2024 sets high expectations for next year’s program.

The decision in Stewart v. Bay of Quinte Mutual Insurance Co. provides insights into the responsibilities of insurers, particularly in assessing the value of lost property and managing risks. As well, the decision highlights the discretion held by courts in allocating value to lost property, and the underlying public policy considerations in insurance contracts.

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Live Nation Ontario Concerts GP, Inc. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2024 ONCA 634 (CanLII) (“Live Nation v. Aviva”) demonstrates that the concepts of risk allocation and equitable contribution are different. Assuming the risk of a certain amount of defence costs via an SIR does not turn an insured into an insurer. The concept of equitable contribution is a remedy between insurers and ought not to be applied between an insurer and an insured.

As defence counsel, we are always dealing with what can be deducted from any settlement and award and the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court provides some direction on the deductibility of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) in a motor vehicle accident.

In Ontario civil litigation, actions concerning coverage disputes and uninsurable losses can dominate the legal landscape, specifically concerning the interpretation of the duties and obligations of an insurance broker. It is critical for both insureds (individuals or companies with insurance policies) and brokers to understand the specific duties and obligations that are required in a customer-broker relationship.

This article presents an overview of the powers and duties of municipalities under the Building Code Act and the Ontario Building Code, provides examples of where municipalities can be vulnerable to liability, and discusses the view of the Canadian Courts on municipal liability.

Municipalities are being kept on their toes with the recent Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) decision in R v Greater Sudbury (City). The SCC held that owners of a construction project fall within the definition of an “employer” under the Occupation Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) and are subject to the required duties and liabilities of an employer. Moving forward, municipalities will have a difficult time insulating themselves from liability under the OHSA when contracting out services.

It is expected that prior to any elective treatment, a physician owes a duty to the patient to provide adequate disclosure of risks. This duty has been expanded over the years to include all advising doctors, even if they are not involved in the treatment directly. It has also been expanded to include “disclosing the nature of the proposed treatment and any material, special, or unusual risks of the treatment." The Ontario Court of Appeal recently applied these duties of care.

It is a trite law of human nature that honesty is the best policy. And it is trite law, as in the actual law, that this is especially true for parties entering insurance agreements. In Davies v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, 2024 ONCA 509, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed a decision regarding an insurance coverage determination.

The issue of whether an intentional action can be properly framed in negligence dates back to the seminal case of Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London v. Scalera. Since then, the courts have repeatedly proclaimed that such attempts are futile. However, this has not stopped counsel from attempting to disguise intentional torts as negligence within their pleadings.