Articles 2023

Topics covered this week included franchise law and rescission, liability for wrongful patent enforcement, the duty to defend in the MVA context, family law (custody and access and breach of court orders), securities class actions, and mortgage enforcement. John Polyzogopoulos

On January 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Precision Plating Ltd.’s (“Precision Plating”) application for leave to appeal the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s (“BCCA”) decision in Precision Plating Ltd. v. Axa Pacific Insurance Co., (“Precision Plating v Axa”).

In an explicit repudiation of the widespread societal suspicion of psychiatry and mental illness, in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, the Supreme Court of Canada has refused to impose a requirement for a claimant to prove that he or she has a recognizable psychiatric illness in order to recover damages for mental injury.

The evaluation of any personal injury claim primarily revolves around a question of credibility. The impact of the injuries suffered by one claimant is often significantly different compared to the same injuries suffered by another claimant.

A recent Alberta decision provides a sobering reminder to landlords to comply with the vacancy provisions of their property insurance policies – or else risk losing their insurance coverage. It may also have been a missed opportunity by the insured to invoke a new provision in Alberta’s Insurance Act that allows the court to refrain from applying an “unjust or unreasonable” contractual provision.

The main takeaway from the recent Court of Appeal case, Gardiner v MacDonald, 2016 ONCA 968, was that professional drivers have a higher standard of care compared with other drivers.

The Divisional Court in Seipt v. Irvine, claim No: (4)25121539, heard an appeal regarding a personal injury case going back to the summer of 2007. The defendants held a backyard birthday party and invited the 57 year old plaintiff. The defendants had two dogs, one being Tazzie, a pitbull. The plaintiff was aware that the defendants had these dogs. It was accepted during the trial that the plaintiff had a fear of dogs. She nonetheless attended the party...

“Disappointed beneficiary” claims over life insurance proceeds have resulted in a complex body of case law combining elements of family law, trusts and insurance law.

In Chernet v. RBC General Insurance Company, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision to dismiss a Plaintiff’s case by way of summary judgment. The Plaintiff’s allegations in the case seemed at odds, from the start, with the generally accepted rules about rear-end accidents.

As regulatory investigations and litigation against corporate directors and officers become increasingly complex and extensive, insurance policies covering defence costs are all the more important. But how far does this coverage stretch? The recent decision of Liberty Silver v Liberty Insurance demonstrates the significant value these policies can provide in covering an early and proactive legal defence.