Focus On

Insurance

Latest

Friday, June 19, 2020 @ 10:26 AM

Careless charges call for careful defence Coplight.jpg

Careless driving is the regulatory offence which fits between civil and criminal liability. It overlaps with both areas and gives rise to significant confusion. While criminal law exists to punish morally blameworthy acts and civil law exists to put people back in the position they were before incidents occurred, regulatory matters like careless driving exist to encourage good behaviour and work primarily to increase safety in otherwise risky activities that have useful social benefit. Driving is a highly regulated activity because of the high risks that exist. Regulation leads to predictability and safety.  ... [read more]

Wednesday, June 17, 2020 @ 2:33 PM

Harper Grey partner joins International Association of Defense Counsel

Harper Grey announced that partner Nigel Trevethan has been invited to join the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC). ... [read more]

Tuesday, June 16, 2020 @ 3:33 PM

COVID-19 class actions: More the merrier, apparently Lawsuit paper

By some counts, there have been between 17 and 33 class actions commenced in the past few months in Canada that are based on or arise out of the economic disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. ... [read more]

Tuesday, June 16, 2020 @ 10:49 AM

Catch the drift: How to deal with stunt driving coplight

In Ontario, stunt driving is most often related to people driving 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit. While this is one manner of stunt driving, there are many more. ... [read more]

Monday, June 15, 2020 @ 11:42 AM

Commercial prejudgment interest rate awarded on coverage claim Man holding tablet and dollar signs

An insurer who wrongfully denied a $121-million claim must pay prejudgment interest based on the actual cost of borrowing, and not the rates stipulated in the Courts of Justice Act, according to a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. ... [read more]

Monday, June 15, 2020 @ 11:24 AM

Zoom impact on oral advocacy Judgezoom

“Don’t cross your arms,” “Don’t forget eye contact,” “Try not to fidget … yes, put down that pencil.” Are these hallmarks of verbal advocacy about to become less relevant? ... [read more]

Friday, June 12, 2020 @ 12:46 PM

Where the fire is: Fighting speeding tickets Coplight

The dreaded speeding ticket. A look into the rearview mirror, or seeing the police set up in a “speed trap” ahead, and panic often sets in. Even when not speeding, many people will brake when they see police because they think they were. In Ontario, default speed limits of 50 kilometres per hour in cities and 80 in rural areas exist but these vary in ways that often seem random. ... [read more]

Friday, June 12, 2020 @ 9:05 AM

Holding cellphone, functional or not, is distracted driving: B.C. Court of Appeal Kyla_Lee

A British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling that found a cellphone with no functionality and held in a position in which it may be used violates the province’s Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) could have a far-reaching effect beyond the driver involved in the case. ... [read more]

Wednesday, June 10, 2020 @ 2:53 PM

Alberta follows Ontario sanctioning ‘upstream’ litigation by videoconference online_trial_sm

In the recent Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision of Sandhu v. Siri Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara of Alberta 2020 ABQB 359, Justice Michael Lema found authority in the Alberta Rules of Court and applied recent Ontario authority, among others, to authorize cross-examination on affidavits by videoconference, or “remotely,” given the exigencies of the pandemic. ... [read more]

Tuesday, June 09, 2020 @ 11:16 AM

Lessons from Stirrett: Analyzing fiduciary claims, properly addressing ‘cause in fact’ Angiogram

On May 6, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Stirrett v. Cheema 2020 ONCA 288, the appeal was granted and the case dismissed. The decision confirmed that causation must be proven claims based on a breach of fiduciary duty. The court ’s causation analysis is worth noting as the court  laid out the correct questions to be asked when determining “cause in fact.” ... [read more]