Articles

Jim Vigmond has been practicing personal injury litigation on behalf of plaintiffs for over 30 years. He is former president of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association and the Simcoe County Law Association. Jim continues to be a leading figure of Ontario’s personal injury trial bar. At Oatley, Vigmond, Jim leads a team of lawyers and support staff with broad expertise in spinal cord, brain injury and serious orthopedic cases.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s April 2022 decision in The Estate of Mary Fleury et al v. Olayiwola A. Kassim is a noteworthy one. Not only does it provide a modern case study of the application of the common law principles surrounding delayed diagnosis, but it also provides new guidance regarding the standard of care, specifically, the standard of care for anatomic pathologists.

Earlier this year, the Civil Rules Committee amended Rule 53.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which had previously provided for flexibility for counsel in producing expert reports at pre-trial conferences. The flexibility built into the old Rule was creating limitations for the effectiveness of pre-trial conferences and often resulted in adjournments of fixed trial dates. The amendment to the Rule aims to strengthen the value of the pre-trial conference.

During the fall of 2020, when Ontarians were hunkering down for the second COVID-19 pandemic wave, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in Kik Interactive Inc. v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada . The Court was tasked with interpreting whether the respondent insurer’s securities exclusion worked to preclude coverage for cryptocurrency sales to the public.

The Court of Appeal in Kumarasamy held that there does not need to be a “clear and unequivocal” denial of a claim for the limitations clock to start. This article provides a high-level overview and summary of the court’s balanced approach in determining how the limitations period is triggered in the context of a claimant’s application for LTD benefits.

In Hemlow Estate v. Co-operators General Insurance Co, 2021 ONCA 908, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the insurer had a duty to defend a claim relating to the negligence of the insured, which resulted in the insured’s own death and property damage at the location where he was working. The court affirmed that the Pollution Exclusion did not apply, as the claim was based in negligence and breach of contract, and not from the escape of a pollutant.

In an interview with Insurance Law Section member-at large Harold Geller, Sandra LeBrun, in-house counsel at Aviva Trial Lawyers (Ottawa Office), talks about her career path, her involvement in the insurance bar and broader legal community, her most memorable court appearance, her advice for junior lawyers, and more.

As we enter 2022, some parties have had their trials adjourned multiple times due to the changing COVID-19 situation, and judges continue to be faced with the decision of how best to deliver just and fair adjudication of civil matters. One year after Poitras was decided we are taking a look back at this important decision and some of the motions that have been decided since.

On November 18, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision on whereby an insurer may be allowed to deny coverage based on a policy breach discovered several years down the road.

The progress made over the pandemic to use technology to make the civil legal system more efficient, affordable, and accessible shall hopefully continue.  This article will set out benefits and drawbacks of virtual examinations for discovery, draw the reader’s attention to four decisions dealing with virtual examinations, provide key takeaways from these decisions, and share resources to assist in conducting a virtual examination.