<?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>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 03:13:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.21</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-149/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-149</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-149/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 23:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7844</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Nathan Ching discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Johnson v. Rajanna et al, 2026 ONSC 4875. In this recent decision, the court affirmed various principles of Rule 49 settlement offers, including when an opposing party can rely on the apparent authority of counsel to accept [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-149/">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-149/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-146/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-146</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-146/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2026 22:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7810</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting,&#160;Amanda Chiu&#160;discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Lloyd v. Baker, 2026 ONCA 434. The decision provides important guidance on the discoverability of claims under the Limitations Act, 2002&#160;in motor vehicle personal injury actions. Facts and Procedural History The respondent, Ms. Lloyd, sustained a concussion in a motor [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-146/">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-146/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-145/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-145</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-145/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2026 12:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance Coverage]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7808</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Nathan Ching discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Carr Law P.C. et al. v. Certas Home and Auto Ins. Co., 2026 ONSC 2203. The case is among the first of its kind to discuss business interruption coverage resulting from an organized crime attack on property [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-145/">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-145/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-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>
	</channel>
</rss>
