RP Blog
SABS Bad Faith Decision Good For Insurers
Kevin Adams was recently quoted in a Law Times article called “Court of Appeal affirms supremacy of Licence Appeal Tribunal”. The article addresses the Court of Appeal’s decision in Stegenga v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 615. The Court of Appeal held that statutory accident benefits claimants cannot sue inRead More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
At this morning’s muffin meeting, Matthew Umbrio discussed a case in which the plaintiffs attempted to back out of a settlement. In Huma et al v. Mississauga Hospital and Queensway Health Centre, 2019 ONSC 5115, the plaintiffs commenced a medical negligence lawsuit. A lawyer assisted with drafting the Statement ofRead More
Four Issues From Recent Jury Trial
Brian Sunohara has written an article called “Four Issues From Recent Jury Trial“. The article summarizes a court decision which examined the following issues: Addressing Unfairness From Partial Settlement Agreements Jury Questions Demonstrative Aids In Opening Addresses Experts’ PowerPoint SlidesRead More
Who is a “Lessee”?
Section 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act outlines the order in which motor vehicle liability policies have to respond to accidents involving rented and leased vehicles. The order is: lessee, driver, and owner. In Aviva Insurance Company v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 704, the Court of Appeal examined who isRead More
Collision Damage Waiver for Rental Vehicle Invalidated
In Enterprise Rent-A-Car v. Richards, 2019 ONSC 5201, the defendant rented a minivan and purchased an optional Collision Damage Waiver. The vehicle was involved in an accident. The defendant’s son was driving the vehicle with the defendant as a passenger. The son was not an authorized driver under the rental agreement andRead More
Appeal Route for Dismissed Claim When Damages Not Assessed
Section 19(1.2)(d) of the Courts of Justice Act gives the Divisional Court jurisdiction over appeals where: the trial court has dismissed a claim in which the plaintiff had not claimed more than $50,000 exclusive of costs, or the trial court has dismissed a claim and, if the claim had been allowed,Read More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
At our muffin meeting, we discussed a decision released by the Court of Appeal this week which addressed liability for an oil leak and the test for causation. In Donleavy v. Ultramar Ltd., 2019 ONCA 687, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s apportionment of liability of 40% onRead More
Condo Owner Loses Unit Due to Unruly Tenant
There are risks with renting out condominium units. The case of York Condominium No. 187 v. Sandhu, 2019 ONSC 4779, demonstrates an extreme risk. Sandhu owned a condominium unit. She leased it to a tenant. The tenant was in constant conflict with building management and ultimately sued the condominium corporation (“YCC”) forRead More
Issue Estoppel vs. Abuse of Process
In Peter B. Cozzi Professional Corporation v. Szot, 2019 ONSC 5071, the court went over the differences between the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process. The purpose of both doctrines is to promote finality to litigation. Duplicative litigation, potential inconsistent results, undue costs, and inconclusive proceedings are toRead More
Three Rogers Partners Lawyers Named in The Best Lawyers
Rogers Partners LLP would like to congratulate the following lawyers named to the 2020 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada: Stephen Ross – Personal Injury Litigation, Insurance Law Kevin Adams – Insurance Law Anita Varjacic – Personal Injury LitigationRead More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
At this morning’s muffin meeting, Micah Pirk-O’Connell discussed an interesting decision on whether an additional insured is entitled to appoint counsel of its own choosing at the insurer’s expense. In Markham (City) v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, 2019 ONSC 4977, the plaintiff was struck by a hockey puck whileRead More
Mistaken Settlement Not Set Aside
If a party makes a mistake in entering into a settlement agreement, it is difficult to set the settlement aside. In Kearns v. Canadian Tire Corporation Limited, 2019 ONSC 4946, a settlement was reached at a mediation in a wrongful dismissal claim. Following the mediation, the defendant realized that a paymentRead More
Insurer Estopped From Denying Coverage
The Court of Appeal’s decision in The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group v. Campbell, 2019 ONCA 668, demonstrates that, if an insurer wants to dispute coverage, it must do so in a timely manner or at least notify its insured of a potential coverage issue. Campbell was involved in an accidentRead More
Negligent Parenting Not Covered Under Auto Policy
In Hunt v. Peel Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 656, the Court of Appeal upheld a decision which addressed whether an automobile insurer had to defend a father for negligent parenting. A daughter sued her father arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The daughter alleged that her father wasRead More
No Duty of Care Owed By Doctors to Family Member
Does a doctor owe a duty of care to a family member of a patient? That was one of several questions in the case of Wawrzyniak v. Livingstone, 2019 ONSC 4900. The plaintiff’s father was elderly and was suffering from several illnesses, including gangrene in his legs. Following knee amputation surgery,Read More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
At our muffin meeting this morning, Matthew Umbrio discussed an interesting Small Claims Court decision in St. Lawrence Testing & Inspection Co. Ltd. v Lanark Leeds Distribution Ltd., 2019 CanLII 69697 (ON SCSM). The defendants brought a motion for judgment confirming that the terms of settlement had been satisfied. ThisRead More
The New Crown Liability and Proceedings Act
The Proceedings Against the Crown Act was repealed on July 1, 2019. It has been replaced with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 (“CLPA”). Under section 11 of CLPA, claims are not permitted against the Crown in respect of legislative, policy, and regulatory decisions. Section 17 of CLPA requiresRead More
Priority Dispute for Out-of-Province Claimant
In Intact v. Gore, 2019 ONSC 4508, the court overturned a decision of an arbitrator regarding a dispute between insurers over the responsibility to pay statutory accident benefits to a claimant who was injured in an out-of-province accident. The claimant was a passenger in a single vehicle accident in Alberta. HisRead More
Counsel’s Role in Preventing Humiliated Experts
Brian Sunohara has written an article called “Counsel’s Role in Preventing Humiliated Experts“. Brian discusses a recent court decision involving an expert who was testifying for the first time. The trial judge found the expert to be biased and unfamiliar with his role as an expert witness. Justice Tzimas emphasizedRead More
No Interim SABS
In T.K. v. Allstate Insurance, 2019 ONLAT 18-007113/AABS, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) confirmed that it does not have jurisdiction to award interim statutory accident benefits, unlike the previous FSCO regime. This is consistent with a prior decision of the LAT. The adjudicator agreed with the insured that the Tribunal’sRead More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
Our articling students did a great job this morning at our muffin meeting! Ankita Abraham addressed the decision in Maria-Antony v. Ivaschenko, 2019 ONSC 4731. The defendants brought a motion for leave to conduct a second psychiatric assessment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff attended a defence psychiatry assessment in 2015. TheRead More
Common Issues in the Automobile Litigation Process – A Primer for Insurance Professionals
Stephen Ross, Tom Macmillan, and Erin Crochetière have prepared a handy resource called “Common Issues in the Automobile Litigation Process – A Primer for Insurance Professionals“. The slides provide a high level, basic overview of defending automobile claims, in particular: Jurisdictional Issues Pleadings Liability Damages Collateral Benefits Prejudgment Interest CostsRead More
The Use of Surveillance at Trial – Abridged Article
We have written an abridged version of our recent article, “The Use of Surveillance at Trial“. In the article, Stephen Ross, Brian Sunohara, and Meryl Rodrigues say that a recent Court of Appeal decision will make it less onerous for defendants to rely on surveillance at trial. The Court of AppealRead More
Damages for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
In Noiles v. MTD Products Inc., 2019 ONSC 4642, the plaintiff was putting air into a tire of a snow thrower when the tire rim exploded. He was 39 years old at the time. Pieces of the fractured rim and tire struck the plaintiff’s right shin. He sustained bruising andRead More
Successful Motion for Further Discovery
In Leendertse v. OPP, 2019 ONSC 4661, the court granted a further discovery of the plaintiff one month prior to trial. The plaintiff provided information and documentation following his initial discovery that suggested a change in his work status. Justice S.K. Campbell stated that, to avoid the defendants being unpreparedRead More
Amendments to Rules on Lawyers’ Removal From Record
Due to amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure which came into effect on January 1, 2019, motions by lawyers to be removed from the record must be made on notice to all parties. Previously, lawyers only had to provide notice to their own clients. Rule 15.04(1.1) indicates that only the notice ofRead More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
Ankita Abraham discussed the court’s decision in Walker v. Canada, 2019 ONSC 4578, at this morning’s muffin meeting. The plaintiff alleged that he injured his left knee at a worksite while he was incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. The plaintiff argued that the federal government was negligent in the maintenanceRead More
Scale of Costs Thrown Away
Costs thrown away are the payment of a party’s costs for wasted preparation for a trial or other hearing, such as when there is an adjournment or a mistrial. Counsel often assume that costs thrown away are fixed on a partial indemnity scale, and the courts often award costs thrownRead More
SABS Claim Barred Due to Failure to Comply With Production Requests
A recent decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal shows that, if insureds do not comply with insurers’ production requests in a timely manner, they may be barred from receiving statutory accident benefits. In I.A. v. TTC Insurance Company Limited, 2019 ONLAT 18-004128/AABS, attendant care benefits and non-earner benefits were in dispute. The insurerRead More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
This morning at our muffin meeting, Brian Sunohara led a group discussion on the impact of the Court of Appeal‘s decision in Nemchin v. Green, 2019 ONCA 634, which was released earlier this week. Our firm represented the appellant on the appeal. We have written a detailed article containing aRead More
Claims Against Educational Institutions
The Supreme Court of Canada recently dismissed an application for leave to appeal in the case of Lam v. University of Western Ontario. The plaintiff was a Ph.D. student in biochemistry at the University of Western Ontario. His academic supervisor unexpectedly died. The plaintiff was then supervised by a supervisory committee. TheRead More
The Use of Surveillance at Trial
The Court of Appeal released a decision today in Nemchin v. Green, 2019 ONCA 634. The decision deals with a dispute over the exclusion of surveillance evidence and Facebook posts at trial. Stephen Ross, Brian Sunohara, and Meryl Rodrigues were counsel on appeal for the appellant. The Court of Appeal held that theRead More
Non-Responsive Plaintiff’s Case Dismissed
Meryl Rodrigues was successful in a motion to dismiss an action today. Meryl made repeated attempts to move the action forward, without any response from plaintiff’s counsel. As a result of the lack of response, Meryl unilaterally scheduled a discovery of the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to attend the discoveryRead More
A Primer on Hearsay
A thorough understanding of hearsay is important for all litigators. Brian Sunohara has written an article called “A Primer on Hearsay“. The article addresses some of the basic principles of hearsay. Brian covers the following topics: What is Hearsay? Traditional Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule Principled Exceptions to the HearsayRead More
Discoveries of Corporate Parties: Who to Produce?
At an examination for discovery of a corporate party, the deponent does not necessarily need to have personal knowledge of the matters in issue. The key thing is whether the deponent properly informed himself or herself. In Boville v. The York Club, 2019 ONSC 4335, plaintiff’s counsel served a notice ofRead More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
At our muffin meeting this morning, we had a great group strategy session on discoveries. We also discussed Tom Macmillan’s court appearance yesterday at an interesting hearing involving a dispute over the sale of certain products at retail stores. Matthew Umbrio went over the court’s decision in Farrugia v. AhmadiRead More
When Can an Insurance Policy Breach Be Forgiven?
Strict compliance with an insurance policy is not necessarily required for an insured to recover under the policy. Two of the main considerations in determining whether an insured should be relieved of a breach of a policy are the seriousness of the breach and prejudice to the insurer. Brian SunoharaRead More
Lawyers’ Professional Duties
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 allRead More
Bad Faith and Statutory Accident Benefits
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 toRead More
Cross-Examining Plaintiffs on Collateral Benefits
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 counselRead More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
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 claimRead More
SCC Denies Leave in Limitations Case
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 thereRead More
Winning Plaintiff Denied Costs
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’Read More
Test for Setting Aside Default Judgments
In Kaur v. Janeallam, 2019 ONSC 4249, Master Muir outlined the test to set aside a default judgment, as previously stated by the Court of Appeal in Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen, 2014 ONCA 194: whether the motion was brought promptly after the defendant learned of the default judgment;Read More
An Evening to Celebrate
Friday night was the perfect time to celebrate our new articling students’ first week at the firm! Ankita Abraham, Micah Pirk O’Connell, and Matthew Umbrio are learning the ropes and settling in nicely. We also celebrated the call to the bar of our newest associate, Colleen Mackeigan. Colleen had a greatRead More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
This morning at our muffin meeting, Brian Sunohara discussed the Court of Appeal’s decision in Dermann v. Baker, 2019 ONCA 584. The defendants had made an offer to settle of $150,000 in a motor vehicle accident case. This offer was not accepted, and the jury awarded the plaintiff just overRead More
Liability Admissions in Sexual Abuse Claims
An article written by David Rogers, entitled “Liability admissions in sexual abuse claims“, has been published by Canadian Employment Law Today. In the article, David says: “the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the standard for an award of punitive damages is very high. There must be egregious conductRead More
Drinking and Driving: Accident After Work Party
Commercial hosts, such as banquet halls, must take steps to prevent over-service of alcohol and to stop guests from drinking and driving. In Eastwood v. Walton, 2019 ONSC 4019, an insurance company held a staff Christmas party at a banquet hall. Following the party, an employee of the insurance company, Walton,Read More
Mould in Condo Unit: Who’s Responsible?
By Brian Sunohara The case of Brasseur v. York Condominium Corporation No. 50, 2019 ONSC 4043, outlines the respective responsibilities of a condominium corporation and a unit owner. Duty to Maintain and Repair Condominium corporations have a duty to maintain and repair the common elements. On the other hand, theRead More
Introducing Our New Articling Students
We’d like to extend a very warm welcome to our new articling students! Ankita Abraham, Matthew Umbrio, and Micah Pirk O’Connell started at Rogers Partners today. Ankita, Matthew, and Micah worked very hard in law school and are now entering the final phase before becoming lawyers. Congratulations on making itRead More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
At this morning’s muffin meeting, Robert Forderer led a group conversation on expert witnesses, particularly, disclosure obligations. This discussion arose from the court’s decision in Edwards v. McCarthy, 2019 ONSC 3925. Justice Stinson held that, at the pre-trial stage, instructing letters from counsel to an expert and the documents givenRead More
Ex Turpi Causa and an Insurer’s Anti-Fraud Initiative
By Brian Sunohara The doctrine of ex turpi causa provides that a person cannot pursue a legal remedy if it arises in connection with the person’s own illegal act. For example, you cannot commit murder and then seek to recover under the victim’s life insurance policy. As another example, twoRead More
WICC Golf Tournament
Rogers Partners is delighted to sponsor and participate in the Women In Insurance Cancer Crusade 20th Annual Golf Tournament. It’s a great day to golf and to support an important cause!Read More
Expert Opinions: What Needs To Be Disclosed?
In Edwards v. McCarthy, 2019 ONSC 3925, Justice Stinson overturned the decision of a Master, in which the Master made the following order in relation to a defendant’s expert report: Production of documents or disclosure of information that demonstrate the instructions on which the expert proceeded Production of documents orRead More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
Robert Forderer discussed a very interesting decision at our muffin meeting this morning. In Moushi v. Stephen, 2019 ONSC 3125, the defendant, Lauren Stephen, had been admitted to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. After being discharged, the plan was for him to start a program at a detox centre. Read More
Closing Addresses in Jury Trials
In a closing address in a jury trial, a lawyer is afforded considerable latitude to advance the cause of his or her client fearlessly and with vigour. However, there are important limits. A jury must not be distracted from its task of deciding the case on the evidence, and trialRead More
Colleen Mackeigan Called to the Bar
Colleen Mackeigan has been called to the bar and is now officially a lawyer! Colleen had a very successful articling term with Rogers Partners. We can’t wait for her to return to the firm as an associate. Congratulations Colleen! All of us at Rogers Partners are very happy for you.Read More
Occupiers Beware: Keep an Eye on Your Contractors
Brian Sunohara has written an article called “Occupiers Beware: Keep an Eye on Your Contractors“. The article addresses a recent court decision and the steps occupiers need to take to insulate themselves from liability when they retain an independent contractor. In the article, Brian says that occupiers cannot take aRead More
Partial Summary Judgment – An Option No More?
An article written by Meryl Rodrigues entitled “Partial Summary Judgment – An Option No More?” has received a great deal of attention. The courts have been reluctant to grant partial summary judgment, and, in some cases, will not even schedule motions for partial summary judgment. In her article, Meryl explainsRead More
Costs Sanction Against Insurer at Pre-Trial Conference
By Brian Sunohara In Al-Khouri v. Hawari, 2019 ONSC 3681, the defendant’s insurer was sanctioned for its conduct at a pre-trial conference. The defendant’s insurer took a “no liability” position and refused to negotiate a settlement. Justice Trimble referred to rule 50.05(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which indicates: Read More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
Our muffin meeting focused on the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Modern Cleaning Concept Inc. v. Comité paritaire de l’entretien d’édifices publics de la région de Québec. The decision analyzes the test in determining whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor. Although the case relatesRead More
Stephen Ross Elected to The Advocates’ Society Board of Directors
Rogers Partners had a strong contingent at The Advocates’ Society End of Term Dinner! It was an extra special evening as Stephen Ross was elected to The Advocates’ Society Board of Directors, which is comprised of leaders of the bar. Congratulations to Stephen on this accomplishment!Read More
Plaintiffs Permitted to Sue in Ontario for Scooter Accident in Thailand
In Vahle et al v. Global Work & Travel Co. Inc., the court determined that Ontario has jurisdiction over a lawsuit related to an accident that occurred in Thailand. Two sisters from Ontario went to Thailand to teach English. The teaching program was organized by the defendant. While riding a motorRead More
Third Party Claim Against Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Struck
Can a defendant commence a third party claim against a plaintiff’s lawyer for failing to preserve evidence? In most cases, the answer is no, according to the Court of Appeal. In Hengeveld v. The Personal Insurance Company, the plaintiffs sued their insurer for failing to preserve their vehicle following aRead More
The Dangers of Drinking and Driving
Drinking and driving remains a far too frequent occurrence. There can be catastrophic consequences, as shown in the case of Hummel v. Jantzi. Some friends met at a house and consumed alcohol. They then went to a bar to watch a Stanley Cup hockey game. The bar had a specialRead More
In|Sight – Summer 2019 Newsletter
We are pleased to present our Summer 2019 Newsletter. There are a number of interesting articles, which we hope you will find informative: Lessons from Gopie v. Ramcharran: A Case Comment and Review of Issues on Appeal in Civil Jury Trials; School Boards, Teachers, and Student Fights; Partial Summary Judgment –Read More
Rogers Partners 25th Annual Employee Summer Party
On Friday, June 14, Rogers Partners held its 25th annual employee summer party. We broke into five teams and worked together assembling and painting nightstands, which will be donated to Habitat for Humanity. There were a lot of creative designs! We carried on to Kelly’s Landing for a fun eveningRead More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
At our muffin meeting this morning, we had a roundtable discussion on a lawyer’s duty of resolute advocacy versus a lawyer’s obligation to not use tactics that are dishonest, including in their interactions with opposing counsel. This discussion arose from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Paulus v. Fleury, whichRead More
Resolute Advocacy vs. Civil Fraud
The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal today in a case involving an allegation of civil fraud against a plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyer. The case of Paulus v. Fleury arose out of a car accident. At a pre-trial conference, the plaintiffs’ lawyer made submissions that he had “independent”Read More
Subrogated Claim Against Tenant Barred
In Rocky Heights v. Biber, the court refused to allow a subrogated claim by an insurer of a landlord to proceed against a tenant. The claim arose out of a residential fire. The fire was caused by the tenant leaving a boiling pot of oil unattended. The tenant was anRead More
Cyber-Attack Class Action Not Certified
In Kaplan v. Casino Rama, the court dismissed a certification motion in a class action involving a cyber-attack. Casino Rama’s computer system was hacked, and personal information was stolen relating to customers, employees, and suppliers. The hacker posted the stolen data on the Internet. Just under 11,000 people had some personalRead More
A Comedian’s Costly Tweets
Social media has been a popular way of communicating with others for some time now. However, caution must be exercised when using social media. As a recent court decision shows, legal damages can be very high when defamatory comments are made. In Emeny v. Tomaszewski, the plaintiff and the defendantRead More
Fridays With Rogers Partners
This morning, at our weekly Friday muffin meeting, Colleen Mackeigan discussed the case of Christie v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex. The parties agreed to a further examination for discovery of the defendant based on answers to undertakings and additional productions. However, the defendant argued that the total length of the initialRead More
Bifurcating Non-Jury Trials
In Duggan v. Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corp., the Divisional Court was split on whether consent of the parties is required to order bifurcation of non-jury trials. Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure indicates: “with the consent of the parties, the court may order a separate hearing on oneRead More
Timing of Motions to Strike Affidavit Evidence