<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Commentaries &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/category/commentaries/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 19:51:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.19</generator>
	<item>
		<title>A Personal Injury Perspective on the Pre-Litigation Protocol proposed by the Civil Rules Review Phase 2 Consultation Report</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/a-personal-injury-perspective-on-the-pre-litigation-protocol-proposed-by-the-civil-rules-review-phase-2-consultation-report/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-personal-injury-perspective-on-the-pre-litigation-protocol-proposed-by-the-civil-rules-review-phase-2-consultation-report</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/a-personal-injury-perspective-on-the-pre-litigation-protocol-proposed-by-the-civil-rules-review-phase-2-consultation-report/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 15:51:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commentaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7354</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Susan McKelvey As many involved in the legal system are aware, major changes have been proposed to Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure in a Phase 2 Consultation Report prepared by the Civil Rules Review (“CRR”) Working Group, which was published in April 2025 (the “Phase 2 Report”). The CRR has been given an important [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/a-personal-injury-perspective-on-the-pre-litigation-protocol-proposed-by-the-civil-rules-review-phase-2-consultation-report/">A Personal Injury Perspective on the Pre-Litigation Protocol proposed by the Civil Rules Review Phase 2 Consultation Report</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/a-personal-injury-perspective-on-the-pre-litigation-protocol-proposed-by-the-civil-rules-review-phase-2-consultation-report/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The 2026 SABS Amendments Require Changes to Ontario’s Priority Dispute Scheme</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-2026-sabs-amendments-require-changes-to-ontarios-priority-dispute-scheme/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-2026-sabs-amendments-require-changes-to-ontarios-priority-dispute-scheme</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-2026-sabs-amendments-require-changes-to-ontarios-priority-dispute-scheme/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 15:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statutory Accident Benefits]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7125</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Jason Frost Ontario Regulation 383/24 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r24383) has amended the SABS for policies issued after June 30, 2026, making many of the previously standard SABS benefits only available for most persons injured in accidents in Ontario if they purchased optional benefits . With the new SABS effective July 1, 2026, more Ontarians should have optional [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-2026-sabs-amendments-require-changes-to-ontarios-priority-dispute-scheme/">The 2026 SABS Amendments Require Changes to Ontario’s Priority Dispute Scheme</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-2026-sabs-amendments-require-changes-to-ontarios-priority-dispute-scheme/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>SABS Amendments Likely to Increase Auto Insurance Premiums and Many Ontarians will not Have Access to Significant Benefits, Without any “Choice”</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/sabs-amendments-likely-to-increase-auto-insurance-premiums-and-many-ontarians-will-not-have-access-to-significant-benefits-without-any-choice/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=sabs-amendments-likely-to-increase-auto-insurance-premiums-and-many-ontarians-will-not-have-access-to-significant-benefits-without-any-choice</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/sabs-amendments-likely-to-increase-auto-insurance-premiums-and-many-ontarians-will-not-have-access-to-significant-benefits-without-any-choice/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2024 20:53:13 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statutory Accident Benefits]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7119</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Jason Frost With Ontario Regulation 383/24 (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r24383), the Ontario Government has amended the SABS for policies issued after June 30, 2026, to remove many of the previously standard SABS benefits for most persons injured in an accident on Ontario. The impact of these changes may be catastrophic. The Amended Regulation Will Likely Harm Insureds, [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/sabs-amendments-likely-to-increase-auto-insurance-premiums-and-many-ontarians-will-not-have-access-to-significant-benefits-without-any-choice/">SABS Amendments Likely to Increase Auto Insurance Premiums and Many Ontarians will not Have Access to Significant Benefits, Without any “Choice”</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/sabs-amendments-likely-to-increase-auto-insurance-premiums-and-many-ontarians-will-not-have-access-to-significant-benefits-without-any-choice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Head of Canada’s Insurance and Banking Regulator Floats Backstop Fund to Mitigate Effects of Future Catastrophic Weather Events</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/head-of-canadas-insurance-and-banking-regulator-floats-backstop-fund-to-mitigate-effects-of-future-catastrophic-weather-events/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=head-of-canadas-insurance-and-banking-regulator-floats-backstop-fund-to-mitigate-effects-of-future-catastrophic-weather-events</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/head-of-canadas-insurance-and-banking-regulator-floats-backstop-fund-to-mitigate-effects-of-future-catastrophic-weather-events/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:38:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance N ews]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6915</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Michael Kryworuk In February 2024, Peter Routledge, head of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), spoke at the 2024 CatIQ Canadian Catastrophe Conference. For those perhaps unfamiliar with the organization, OFSI is Canada’s sole financial regulator over the banking system and the premier regulator of insurance companies in Canada. In a [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/head-of-canadas-insurance-and-banking-regulator-floats-backstop-fund-to-mitigate-effects-of-future-catastrophic-weather-events/">Head of Canada’s Insurance and Banking Regulator Floats Backstop Fund to Mitigate Effects of Future Catastrophic Weather Events</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/head-of-canadas-insurance-and-banking-regulator-floats-backstop-fund-to-mitigate-effects-of-future-catastrophic-weather-events/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rule 48.04: Amendment Permits Consenting to Trial List Placement without Losing Discovery Rights</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/rule-48-04-amendment-permits-consenting-to-trial-list-placement-without-losing-discovery-rights/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rule-48-04-amendment-permits-consenting-to-trial-list-placement-without-losing-discovery-rights</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/rule-48-04-amendment-permits-consenting-to-trial-list-placement-without-losing-discovery-rights/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2023 22:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6384</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Amanda Colarossi Overview The Rules of Civil Procedure often change. Sometimes they change in minor ways, and sometimes major ways. Rule 48.04 underwent a small but important change by amendment in July 2021. A party not setting a matter down for trial can now consent to the matter being placed on the trial list, [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/rule-48-04-amendment-permits-consenting-to-trial-list-placement-without-losing-discovery-rights/">Rule 48.04: Amendment Permits Consenting to Trial List Placement without Losing Discovery Rights</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/rule-48-04-amendment-permits-consenting-to-trial-list-placement-without-losing-discovery-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Income Replacement Benefits – To Deduct or Not To Deduct CPP Disability, EI and CERB?</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/income-replacement-benefits-to-deduct-or-not-to-deduct-cpp-disability-ei-and-cerb/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=income-replacement-benefits-to-deduct-or-not-to-deduct-cpp-disability-ei-and-cerb</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/income-replacement-benefits-to-deduct-or-not-to-deduct-cpp-disability-ei-and-cerb/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2022 21:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statutory Accident Benefits]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6248</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Amanda Colarossi Where a claimant is entitled to income replacement benefits (“IRB”), the accident benefits insurer is entitled to certain deductions when calculating the weekly IRB amount payable to the claimant. Calculating the Weekly Base Amount IRBs are paid at 70% of the claimant’s pre-accident gross income earnings, up to a maximum of $400 [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/income-replacement-benefits-to-deduct-or-not-to-deduct-cpp-disability-ei-and-cerb/">Income Replacement Benefits – To Deduct or Not To Deduct CPP Disability, EI and CERB?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/income-replacement-benefits-to-deduct-or-not-to-deduct-cpp-disability-ei-and-cerb/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Undue Delays in Obtaining Approval of Settlement: What to do?</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/undue-delays-in-obtaining-approval-of-settlement-what-to-do/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=undue-delays-in-obtaining-approval-of-settlement-what-to-do</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/undue-delays-in-obtaining-approval-of-settlement-what-to-do/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2022 22:10:12 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6219</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By&#160;J. Nicholas Fernandes The basic tenet of Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is that any settlement of a claim by or against a person under disability, including minors, requires Court approval. &#160;On a motion (or application, if settlement occurs prior to a lawsuit being commenced) to obtain such approval, the party under [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/undue-delays-in-obtaining-approval-of-settlement-what-to-do/">Undue Delays in Obtaining Approval of Settlement: What to do?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/undue-delays-in-obtaining-approval-of-settlement-what-to-do/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taylor v. Mayes: A Case Study in Highway Winter Maintenance Actions</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/taylor-v-mayes-a-case-study-in-highway-winter-maintenance-actions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=taylor-v-mayes-a-case-study-in-highway-winter-maintenance-actions</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/taylor-v-mayes-a-case-study-in-highway-winter-maintenance-actions/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2022 21:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commentaries]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5859</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Kathryn Orydzuk This case study will review the various issues considered in two motions in the same action, one of which was appealed. The three decisions are as follows: Taylor v. Mayes, 2019 ONSC 5651 Taylor v. Mayes, 2021 ONSC 2239 Taylor v. Mayes, 2022 ONCA 297 The motions are demonstrative of some common [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/taylor-v-mayes-a-case-study-in-highway-winter-maintenance-actions/">Taylor v. Mayes: A Case Study in Highway Winter Maintenance Actions</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/taylor-v-mayes-a-case-study-in-highway-winter-maintenance-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guidance on Civil Case Conferences from the Ontario Superior Court</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/guidance-on-civil-case-conferences-from-the-ontario-superior-court/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=guidance-on-civil-case-conferences-from-the-ontario-superior-court</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/guidance-on-civil-case-conferences-from-the-ontario-superior-court/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2022 22:04:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commentaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5691</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Meryl Rodrigues While civil case conferences may seem a relatively quick and less formal way to secure judicial intervention to assist in moving a case forward, particularly at a time of notable court delays and backlog, a recent endorsement from the Superior Court of Justice suggests that counsel ought to be discerning and cautious [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/guidance-on-civil-case-conferences-from-the-ontario-superior-court/">Guidance on Civil Case Conferences from the Ontario Superior Court</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/guidance-on-civil-case-conferences-from-the-ontario-superior-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Privacy Commissioner Calls for Updated Federal Privacy Laws amidst Inconsistent Provincial and Territorial Privacy Protection Frameworks</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/federal-privacy-commissioner-calls-for-updated-federal-privacy-laws-amidst-inconsistent-provincial-and-territorial-privacy-protection-frameworks/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=federal-privacy-commissioner-calls-for-updated-federal-privacy-laws-amidst-inconsistent-provincial-and-territorial-privacy-protection-frameworks</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/federal-privacy-commissioner-calls-for-updated-federal-privacy-laws-amidst-inconsistent-provincial-and-territorial-privacy-protection-frameworks/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2021 22:42:06 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5600</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Christopher MacDonald Last week, on December 9, 2021, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Daniel Therrien, published his final annual report wherein he called upon the federal government to “bring Canada into the modern era by adopting rights-based privacy laws that will reflect Canadian values and support responsible innovation.” The Commissioner pointed to successive large [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/federal-privacy-commissioner-calls-for-updated-federal-privacy-laws-amidst-inconsistent-provincial-and-territorial-privacy-protection-frameworks/">Federal Privacy Commissioner Calls for Updated Federal Privacy Laws amidst Inconsistent Provincial and Territorial Privacy Protection Frameworks</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/federal-privacy-commissioner-calls-for-updated-federal-privacy-laws-amidst-inconsistent-provincial-and-territorial-privacy-protection-frameworks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
