Conduct of Defence Counsel: A Lesson from the Bench
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently set out a laundry list of items that counsel should refrain from doing when defending a claim. In Aiyub Saleh v. Ludwig Nebel, 2015 ONSC 3680, Justice Myers gave defence counsel a shellacking. ...
Counsel-Expert Communications: Everything Old is New Again
In December 2014, we had left off with the Ontario Superior Court, in Moore v Getahun[1] (“Getahun”), having decided that the historically accepted practice of counsel reviewing drafts of their expert’s reports should stop, and that all instructions provided by...
Absence of Statutory Warning turns Victory for the Vehicle Leasing Industry into Loss for the Insurer
In the province of British Columbia, vehicle owners, including leasing and rental companies, are vicariously liable for the negligence of permissive drivers of their vehicles. Damages recoverable against lessors, however, are capped by statute at CDN $1 million (a provision...
A Year on the Books: Reflections on Summary Judgment in Alberta
January 2015 marked the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin,[1] which clearly articulated a cultural shift aimed at facilitating a fair process for the just adjudication of disputes, with simplified and proportionate...
Pollution Resulting From Fire is Not “Pollution”, says BC Court
Virtually every modern CGL policy contains some variation of the “absolute pollution exclusion”, which eliminates or severely restricts coverage for environmental damages. In recent years, the courts in British Columbia and elsewhere have consistently upheld such exclusions in relation to...
How Real is the Risk for Professionals Who Design an Immovable Work in Quebec?
In Quebec, there are two kinds of property: immovables and movables. The notion of ‘immovable work’ includes all immovable structures of considerable size. Any constructions and works of a permanent nature would be characterized as immovables. The interpretation of an...
Counsel-Expert Communications: The Debate Rages On
Two recent decisions have shaken up the litigation bar. The Ontario Superior Court, in Bailey v Barbour,[1] explicitly set out the court’s expectations of an expert’s proper behaviour. In the subsequent decision of Moore v. Getahun,[2] the Ontario Superior Court...
Insurers Ordered to Pay Out Claim Despite Faulty and Improper Workmanship: How Canada Interprets the Faulty or Improper Workmanship Exclusion
Insurers often rely on the faulty or improper workmanship exclusion under a Course of Construction (aka Contractors’ All Risk or Builders’ Risk) insurance policy to deny coverage for claims arising from imperfect workmanship. Specifically, the LEG 2/96 exclusion clause, developed...
What To Do With Sleeping Dogs: Dismissal for Delay
In most Canadian jurisdictions, a plaintiff’s claim can be dismissed for delay. Lord Salmon, in Fitzpatrick v. Batger & Co., [1967] 2 All E.R. 657, articulated the problem of dormant claims, as follows: [The defendants] no doubt, however, were relying...
Message from the Lloyd’s Team
Welcome to our December edition of the Lloyd’s Brief. We hope it will be useful. We would like to wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and all the best for 2015. Kind regards, Mark FrederickTom WhitbyAnna CasemoreKent DavidsonBill KennySandra...
