skip to main content
Back to Top

Newsletters, Papers and Publications

select
select
select
select
Sep
2017
Noteworthy

Deductibles, Pre-Judgment Interest, Etc. The Court of Appeal Settles the Law … Or Does It?

On September 19, 2017 the On-tario Court of Appeal released Reasons for Judgment in the cases of El-Khodr v. Lackie and Cobb v. Long Estate, two long awaited decisions of interest to the personal injury bar and insur-ers. The Reasons in both cases......

Jun
2017
Noteworthy

Expert Evidence on Signs of Intoxication – What Evidence Can Be Entered at Trial?

Author Richard F. Horak

In a trial ruling issued by Justice Rady in the case of Tuff-nail v. Meekes et al, the Court was called upon to determine the extent to which an expert toxicologist was entitled to give opinion evidence.

Apr
2017
Noteworthy

Social Host Liability; The Door Opens a Little Wider

Author Richard F. Horak

Since the seminal decision in Childs v. Desormeaux [2006] 1 S.C.R. 643, in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Defendants did not owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff, counsel and insurers have wondered as to the potential liability of ......

Feb
2017
Noteworthy

Ontario Court of Appeal Finds No Entitlement to Replacement Cost under Fire Policy

Author Michael S. Teitelbaum

In Carter v Intact Insurance Co., 2016 ONCA 917, the insureds sought indemnity for replacement cost and building code upgrades after fire damaged several buildings. At first instance, the Motion Judge found that the policy did not entitle the insu......

Dec
2016
Noteworthy

Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms the Duty to Defend Alleged Consequential Damage

Author Michael S. Teitelbaum

Recently, in Parkhill Excavation Ltd. v. Royal & Sunalliance Insurance Co. of Canada, 2016 ONCA 832, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the motion judge’s finding there was no duty to defend a construction deficiency claim in respect of the installation of septic systems. At first instance, Healey J. had found there was no de-fence obligation as the subcontractor exception to the “Your Work” exclusion did not apply because the subcontractor was a supplier and not a contractor. The Court of Appeal held that because consequential damages were alleged, the Your Work exclusion could not apply, a de-fence was owed, and it was unnecessary to go on to con-sider the Subcontractor Exception to the exclusion.

Nov
2016
Noteworthy

Dirty Windows Help to Clarify Appellate Review of Standard Form Contracts

Author Michael S. Teitelbaum

Just when you thought the judicial approach to the appellate standard of review for Canadian contract interpretation had been addressed, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37 (“Ledcor”) on September 15, 2016. Ledcor has created an exception to the Court’s significant decision in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (“Sattva”), which had held that the appropriate appellate standard of review for con-tract interpretation was the deferential one of palpable and overriding error.

Sep
2016
Noteworthy

The Scope of an Insurer's Duty to Defend an Additional Insured

Author Michael S. Teitelbaum

Two recent Ontario Court of Appeal decisions have, to a considerable extent, clarified the obligations of an insurer that has agreed to provide liability coverage to persons or entities as additional insureds.

Jul
2016
Noteworthy

Thresholds and Deductibles; The Struggle Continues

Author Richard F. Horak

In a recent edition of Noteworthy (Volume 2 of 2016) we referenced a number of recent cases in which the courts have dealt with these issues. Two more recent decisions are wor-thy of discussion. 

May
2016
Noteworthy

The Ontario Court of Appeal addresses the limitation period for claiming defence costs

Author Michael S. Teitelbaum

In Daverne v. John Switzer Fuels Ltd., 2015 ONCA 919, the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of what limitation period applies with-in the context of an insurer’s duty to defend. The successful appeal found that the insured’s claim was barred by the limitation found in the subject liability policy of one year. In rendering their decision, the three-person panel considered an issue that has not been comprehensively addressed in Ontario.

Apr
2016
Noteworthy

Recent Threshold Decisions

Authors Greg Bailey and Jay M. Silber

This article outlines short notes about 4 recent threshold decisions.

Items 1 to 10 of 92
  • Canadian Lawyer - Top 10 Boutique 2017-18
  • The ARC Group
  • Best Lawyers 2017
  • Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2016

© 201​6-17 All rights reserved | Legal Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Accessibility