Articles 2021

What are the factors required to demonstrate a compensable mental injury? Evidence from friends and family will be accepted, and there is no necessity of a medical expert. However, the Plaintiff must show that they have sustained “a serious and prolonged disruption that transcended ordinary emotional upset or distress."

In the recent decision of Musa v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 255, the Ontario Court of Appeal offers clear guidance as to how long a winter maintenance contractor can wait before it must apply salt to an area, a problem which has long plagued both plaintiff and defence lawyers alike.

The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Ontario (Government and Consumer Services) v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company 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 to pay statutory accident benefits after an automobile accident.

From live demonstrations and abundant, unparalleled networking opportunities, to proven tactics for effective trial advocacy and new strategies for litigating in the digital age, program chairs for the always-popular, ever-evolving Anatomy of a Trial highlight the special features of this year's not-to-be-missed event.

In its recent decision, Skymark Finance Corporation v Ontario, 2023 ONCA 234 , 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."

On March 3 and 4, 2023, a massive endeavor was undertaken to run the first exclusive Tort Appellate Moot of its kind in the province of Ontario.

In Martin v AGO et al. , the Ontario Superior Court reiterated that the standard of care required of an occupier under Section 3(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 (the “Act”) is one of reasonableness and not perfection. Although the standard of care is fact-specific, occupiers are not responsible for eliminating every conceivable form of danger on the premises.

In Thorman v. McGraw, 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.

The Ontario Court of Appeal clarified that although ameliorative efforts may toll a limitation period, the “modified objective test” under section 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, 2002 (the “Limitations Act”) continues to apply.

In recent years, single-photon emission computerized tomography scans (otherwise known as “SPECT” scans) have been the subject of debate in Ontario’s court rooms when evaluating brain injury claims. Whether the conclusions resulting from such scans can be admitted into evidence and for what purpose are increasingly becoming important questions in personal injury law.