-
Recent Posts
Archives
- October 2015
- July 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- January 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- September 2011
- May 2011
- February 2011
- October 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
Categories
- Advertising Injury
- Allocation of Defence Costs
- Appeals
- Auto
- Auto (Tort)
- CGL
- Collateral Benefits
- Commercial Litigation
- Conflict of Laws
- Contract
- Costs
- Damages
- Defamation
- Discoverability
- Discovery
- Duty to Defend
- Environmental
- Evidence
- Exclusions
- Experts and Opinions
- Fire Insurance
- Fires
- FLA
- Insurance News
- Juries
- Lawyers
- Limitation Periods
- Litigation Technology
- Municipalities
- Occupier's Liability
- Pleadings
- Practice and Procedure
- Practice of Law
- Privacy
- Privilege
- Products Liability
- Professional Liability
- Risk Transfer
- Sale of Goods
- Social and Commercial Host Liability
- Subrogation
- Threshold
- Tort News
- Trial Procedure
- Uncategorized
- Uninsured or Underinsured
- Waivers and releases
Meta
Category Archives: Evidence
Court Accepts Expert Testimony, Reduces Rule 53.09 Discount Rates for Future Health Care Expenses
In Gordon v. Greig, Justice Bruce A. Glass has assessed damages arising out of catastrophic injuries to two young men who were involved in the same motor vehicle accident. Both were awarded general non-pecuniary damages of $310,000, the maximum available … Continue reading
Posted in Damages, Evidence, Trial Procedure
Comments Off on Court Accepts Expert Testimony, Reduces Rule 53.09 Discount Rates for Future Health Care Expenses
Dangerous Driving Conviction Precludes Driver from Contesting Liability in Civil Action
The decision of Mr. Justice David M. Brown in Caci v. MacArthur raises some interesting questions relating to apportionment of fault. It also applied to this MVA action a line of decisions in sexual abuse cases, where defendants had not been … Continue reading
Posted in Evidence, Juries, Practice and Procedure, Trial Procedure
Comments Off on Dangerous Driving Conviction Precludes Driver from Contesting Liability in Civil Action
Third Party Action Against Plaintiff’s Expert Dismissed on Basis of No Duty of Care and “Witness Immunity”
In an interesting decision, just released, Mr. Justice De Lotbinière Panet dismissed a third party claim brought by a defendant against an engineering firm which had provided a report to the plaintiff. Vie Holdings Inc. v. Imperial Oil Limited was … Continue reading
Posted in Commercial Litigation, Evidence, Privilege, Trial Procedure
Comments Off on Third Party Action Against Plaintiff’s Expert Dismissed on Basis of No Duty of Care and “Witness Immunity”
U.S. Engineer’s Testimony in Ontario Trial Not “Practice of Professional Engineering” Under s. 12 of PEA
quattrocchi-v-chiquita An interesting issue arose last month at a trial in which our office was involved. The action, Quattrocchi v. Chiquita et al. (link to decision appears above), was a subrogated claim arising out of a fire at a Smiths Falls … Continue reading
Posted in Evidence
Comments Off on U.S. Engineer’s Testimony in Ontario Trial Not “Practice of Professional Engineering” Under s. 12 of PEA
C.A. Dismisses Appeal in Tiger Mauling Case
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the defendant’s appeal in Cowles v. Balac, the case in which Justice Jean MacFarland of the Ontario Superior Court found The African Lion Safari & Game Farm Ltd. liable to a couple mauled by … Continue reading
Posted in Evidence
Comments Off on C.A. Dismisses Appeal in Tiger Mauling Case
C.A. Clarifies Causation Rules in Negligence Cases
In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal in a medical malpractice case, finding in favour of the defendants. The decision hinged on what evidence a plaintiff must lead in order to show that the defendant’s negligence … Continue reading
C.A. Reverses Colleague, Holds that Counsel’s Memorandum of Discussion with Expert Not Producible
A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal today reversed a July decision of a single judge of that court. The earlier decision of Gillese J.A. was the subject of a previous posting in our blawg (“C.A. Takes Expansive View … Continue reading
Posted in Discovery, Evidence, Practice and Procedure, Privilege
Comments Off on C.A. Reverses Colleague, Holds that Counsel’s Memorandum of Discussion with Expert Not Producible
Surveillance Ruled Inadmissible
Lis v. Lombard Insurance illustrates a common difficulty with surveillance videotape. Under Rule 30.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a “document” (which would include a videotape) on which privilege has been claimed, cannot be used at trial without … Continue reading
Posted in Evidence, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Surveillance Ruled Inadmissible
Summary Judgment Granted on Basis of Conflicting Opinions on Quebec Law
Usually, the law of a “foreign” jurisdiction (which, in this context, includes that of the other Canadian provinces) has to be proved at an Ontario trial through expert testimony. If the foreign law is not proved, the general rule is that … Continue reading
Posted in Conflict of Laws, Evidence
Comments Off on Summary Judgment Granted on Basis of Conflicting Opinions on Quebec Law
Divisional Court Says Mediator Can’t Be Forced to Testify
In Rudd v. Trossacs Investments Inc., the Divisional Court has ruled that a party to a settlement reached at a mandatory mediation could not examine the mediator as a witness on a subsequent motion seeking rectification of the settlement. Justices … Continue reading
Posted in Evidence, Practice and Procedure
Comments Off on Divisional Court Says Mediator Can’t Be Forced to Testify