<?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>Friday Forum &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/category/friday-forum/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2024 14:43:29 +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>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-136/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-136</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-136/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2024 18:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7231</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Sarah Sevier discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Wheelans v. Kuss, 2024 ONSC 6728, dismissing a motion for bifurcation pursuant to Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court concluded that the potential cost savings and efficiencies of separate hearings for liability and [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-136/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-136/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-137/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-137</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-137/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2024 18:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7233</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Heera Sen discussed a pre-trial evidentiary ruling in Wasylyk v. The Corporation of Simcoe County, 2022 ONSC 4458. Justice Casullo ruled that photographs of the accident scene, enhanced by a forensic photographer, were admissible at trial. Background of the Case Ms. Wasylyk, the plaintiff, lost control of her vehicle on Simcoe [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-137/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-137/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-138/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-138</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-138/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7235</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Sarah Sevier discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) in Passmore v. Hamilton (City), 2024 ONCA 825. The ONCA granted the appeal, overturning a summary judgment motion, and remitted the matter back to the Superior Court of Justice for trial. The case centers on the motion judge’s [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-138/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-138/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-139/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-139</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-139/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2024 19:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7237</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Jaaron Pullenayegem discussed the recent decision in Harrigin v. Clarke, 2024 ONSC 6130. This decision addressed a plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline to serve a statement of claim on the defendant Clarke, stemming from a 2019 motor vehicle accident. The statement of claim was issued in November 2021, giving the [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-139/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-139/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-140/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-140</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-140/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2024 19:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7239</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Heera Sen discussed a recent pre-trial endorsement by Justice Stevenson in Whitney v. TTC et al, dated October 1, 2024, in which a defendant&#8217;s motion for leave to serve late expert reports was denied. This case highlights the importance of timely compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure following the 2022 [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-140/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-140/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-141/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-141</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-141/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance Coverage]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7241</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Sarah Sevier discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Stewart v. Bay of Quinte Mutual Insurance Co., 2024 ONCA 730. FACTS This case involved an appeal from Bay of Quinte Mutual Insurance Co. (“BQMI”) regarding a judgment awarded to the estate of Mr. Dennis Lynch (“Lynch”) after a [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-141/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-141/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-142/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-142</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-142/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2024 08:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance Coverage]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7243</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Heera Elize Sen discussed the recent Court of Appeal decision, Kerk-Courtney v. Security National Insurance Company (TD General Insurance Company), 2024 ONCA 676, where the court considered the issue of whether an insurance company owed a duty to defend and indemnify its insured. The Court of Appeal found that the application [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-142/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-142/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-143/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-143</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-143/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2024 09:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7245</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Miranda Lacalamita discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Robson v. LSO, 2024 ONSC 4728, dismissing the defendants’ motion to strike the jury notice in the action. The court dismissed the motion without prejudice to the trial judge striking the jury notice at the outset or [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-143/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-143/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-144/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-144</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-144/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 10:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance Coverage]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7248</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Jaaron Pullenayegem discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Live Nation Ontario Concerts GP, Inc. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada[1]. This case concerned an insurer’s duty to defend covered and uncovered allegations under an insurance policy. The Court clarified the analysis required to examine the true [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-144/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-144/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-135/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-135</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-135/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Aug 2024 22:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7076</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Miranda Lacalamita discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in McKee v. Shahid, 2024 ONSC 4258, granting the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s pleadings in its entirety, but allowing the plaintiff to amend the claim to plead one cause of action. Facts The case involved a [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-135/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-135/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
