July 24, 2019
In Blake v. Blake, 2019 ONSC 4062, Regional Senior Justice Daley provided a detailed overview of a lawyer’s professional duties to keep up to date on case law and to bring relevant authorities to the court’s attention. Disclosure of Authorities Counsel have a positive duty to make full disclosure of all binding authorities relevant to a […]
July 23, 2019
By Kevin Adams In Stegenga v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, the plaintiff brought a court action seeking damages related to the administration of her accident benefits claim based on alleged bad faith, negligence and fraud on the part of her insurer, Economical. The defendant brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff’s statement of […]
July 22, 2019
By Brian Sunohara In a trial of a motor vehicle accident action, deductions for collateral benefits are determined by the trial judge after the jury’s verdict. The jury is not permitted to deduct collateral benefits in its assessment of damages. The Issue A question then arises on whether defence counsel can cross-examine a plaintiff on […]
July 19, 2019
It was great to see two of our new articling students present cases at our muffin meeting this morning. They did a fantastic job! Ankita Abraham discussed the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hengeveld v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 497. The defendant insurer commenced a third party claim against the plaintiffs’ lawyers for […]
July 18, 2019
In a judgment released today in the case of Zeppa v. Woodbridge Heating & Air-Conditioning Ltd., Brian Sunohara was successful in a Supreme Court of Canada leave to appeal application. Brian acted for an HVAC company that installed an HVAC system at the plaintiffs’ house. The plaintiffs alleged that there were immediate and ongoing problems […]
July 17, 2019
In Mahood v. Walsh, 2019 ONSC 4312, Justice Heeney declined to order any costs despite finding that the plaintiff “clearly won” the trial. The plaintiff was awarded $72,500 in damages and interest, which was less than the defendants’ offer to settle of $90,000. However, Justice Heeney held that the defendants’ offer did not meet the […]
