Monthly Archives: January 2007

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”

C.A. Criticizes Trial Judges Incorporation of Excerpts from Factums into Reasons

In a decision released last Friday, the Court of Appeal sent a strong message to the trial bench: be very careful about incorporating into judgments excerpts from the arguments of counsel. The case is 2878852 Canada Inc. v. Jones Heward … Continue reading

Posted in Practice and Procedure, Trial Procedure | Comments Off on C.A. Criticizes Trial Judges Incorporation of Excerpts from Factums into Reasons

Driver of Go-kart Entitled to Liability Coverage Under Auto Policy

FURTHER UPDATE–We understand that the appeal from this decision was heard by the Court of Appeal on October 31, 2007. We’ll report on the appeal decision as soon as it becomes available. UPDATED–Since the original post, some additional discussion of the … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Duty to Defend, Insurance News | Comments Off on Driver of Go-kart Entitled to Liability Coverage Under Auto Policy

Power J. Says Costs Premiums Are Back!

Ward v. Manulife (Costs).pdf In a major development in the law of costs, Mr. Justice Denis J. Power has distinguished the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ritchie v. Walker and has held that, because of two changes to Rule … Continue reading

Posted in Costs | Comments Off on Power J. Says Costs Premiums Are Back!

Limitation Period Extended on Basis of Discoverability and Special Circumstances–Should It Have Been?

The recent decision of Parker v. Chapman raises some interesting issues about the law of limitation periods in the post-Limitations Act, 2002 era. The ruling was made by Mr. Justice Barry MacDougall of the Ontario Superior Court. This was a … Continue reading

Posted in Discoverability, Limitation Periods, Professional Liability | Comments Off on Limitation Period Extended on Basis of Discoverability and Special Circumstances–Should It Have Been?

Loss Transfer for Vermont Accident Still Governed by Ontario Law

In Royal & SunAlliance Insurance v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, Superior Court Justice Frank Newbould has ruled that a loss transfer claim by one Ontario insurer against another, arising out of a car accident that took place in Vermont, is … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Insurance News | Comments Off on Loss Transfer for Vermont Accident Still Governed by Ontario Law

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. Allows Substitution of One Municipality for Another After Limitation Period

Addendum: The decision discussed in this post was reversed by the Court of Appeal on May 2, 2008. The Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiff’s solicitor had always intended to sue the municipality having jurisdiction over the road in … Continue reading

Posted in Insurance News | Comments Off on C.A. Allows Substitution of One Municipality for Another After Limitation Period

Uninsured Coverage Available to Unnamed Insured but Not to Named Insured

In an interesting decision, Mr. Justice David Brown has ruled that a fleet policy issued by Royal & SunAlliance provided uninsured motorist coverage to an employee of Royal’s named insured. The employee had been injured while pouring gasoline into the … Continue reading

Posted in Auto, Insurance News, Uninsured or Underinsured | Comments Off on Uninsured Coverage Available to Unnamed Insured but Not to Named Insured

Walker v. Ritchie Judge Holds that Costs Premiums Not Recoverable Even Under Current Wording of Rule 57

Mr. Justice John H. Brockenshire, who was the judge at first instance in Walker v. Ritchie, has released another decision dealing with costs premiums. The Walker case went to the Supreme Court of Canada (sub nom. Ritchie v. Walker). That … Continue reading

Posted in Costs | Comments Off on Walker v. Ritchie Judge Holds that Costs Premiums Not Recoverable Even Under Current Wording of Rule 57