Co-Authored by Stephen Gaudreau1
Handout from Jay Skukowski and Robert Moss' presentation on "The Challenges of Dealing with Self-Represented Litigants," as part of the Insurance Law Spring Update 2013 seminar, which took place May 8, 2013.
Supporting paper from David Mackenzie's presentation on "Data Breach: Covered or Not?," as part of the Insurance Law Spring Update 2013 seminar, which took place May 8, 2013. NOTE: The information and views expressed in this presentation are for information purposes only and are not intended to provide legal advice. For specific advice, please contact us.
Powerpoint slides from Larry Reimer's presentation on "Sports Injury Claims: Liability, Risk and Waivers," as part of the Insurance Law Spring Update 2013 seminar, which took place May 8, 2013. NOTE: The information and views expressed in this presentation are for information purposes only and are not intended to provide legal advice. For specific advice, please contact us.
Blaney McMurtry LLP lawyers Tim Alexander and Alva Orlando recently obtained the dismissal of a $150,000,000 claim brought by a Canadian gold mining company against a U.S. based engineering firm and its employees on the basis that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
With contributions from Jason Mangano, Kyra Leuschen and Sébastien Kamayah
Powerpoint slides entitled “Effectively Adjusting CAT Claims: Contingent Business Interruption Insurance”, presented by Mark G. Lichty, as part of the National Insurance Conference of Canada, which took place in Quebec City on October 1, 2012.
Durham District School Board v. Grodesky,  O.J. No. 1829 (C.A.) On April 27, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Durham District School Board v. Grodesky, on review from the Ontario Superior Court. The panel overturned the lower Court’s decision and ruled that ING Insurance Company of Canada (“ING”) could not rely on an Intentional/Criminal Acts exclusion to deny its policyholder, Todd James (“James”), a defence.
Powerpoint slides from Tim Farrell and Danielle Stone's presentation on "Internet Defamation: The World Wide Web of Exposure," as part of the Insurance Law Spring Update 2012 seminar, which took place April 4, 2012.
Powerpoint slides from Jay Stolberg and Brenda Gross' presentation on "Legal Update: Noteworthy Developments," as part of the Insurance Law Spring Update 2012 seminar, which took place April 4, 2012.
Powerpoint slides from Jason Mangano and David Mackenzie's presentation on "The New Tort Relating to Invasion of Privacy: Insurance Implications," as part of the Insurance Law Spring Update 2012 seminar, which took place April 4, 2012.
On a dark winter night in December of 2000, a young man, who was travelling from Calgary to Nova Scotia by Greyhound bus through a remote section of Northern Ontario, grabbed the wheel of the bus from the driver and sent the bus careening into a ravine. One person was killed and a score of passengers were injured. A number of the injured passengers and the family of the person killed sued the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and Greyhound for damages.
As presented by Stephen R. Moore at Trick of the Trade 2012, The Advocates' Society, Toronto, January 27, 2012.
As delivered by Stephen R. Moore at the "6th Annual Update Personal Injury Law and Practice" Professional Development Program, Osgoode Hall Law School, September 6, 2010. OVERVIEW[i] In tort the plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities that:
Introduction: A Test Drive of the Stonewall Decision In 1995 the United States Court of Appeal (for the Second Circuit) released its decision in Stonewall Insurance Company v. Asbestos Claims Management Corporation, 73 F.3d 1178. That case ignited an insurance coverage debate about whether or not a policyholder must contribute to pay defence costs to reflect years during which it had no insurance coverage. This debate has been raging in many US jurisdictions ever since.
Presented by Julia Anagnostakis at Spring 2011 Insurance Law Update on May 12, 2011.
It is a well-established principle that litigants – both plaintiffs and defendants – may not relitigate issues that have been previously adjudicated upon. This principle was recently considered by the Court of Appeal in Penner v. Niagara (Police Services Board),  O.J. No. 4046 (C.A.), in which the Court affirmed the decision to strike parts of the action which had been previously adjudicated upon in a police discipline proceeding. The facts of Penner are somewhat unique and lent themselves to the application of issue estoppel.
Everding v. Skrijel marks the first word from the Ontario Court of Appeal on how the Limitations Act, 2002 applies to the statutory criteria for recovery in an auto claim under the Insurance Act.
A licence plate search is a rudimentary step in any action arising out of a motor vehicle accident and the failure to conduct one can result in adverse consequences for both plaintiffs and defendants.