Focus On
NEW In-House Counsel | Insurance | Intellectual Property | Immigration | Natural Resources | Real Estate | Tax

Insurance

Latest

Wednesday, March 22, 2017 @ 1:50 PM

Chain-reaction accidents: Who pays?

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has provided clarity as to how the fault attribution rules ought to be applied to loss transfer disputes in chain-reaction motor vehicle accidents. ... [read more]

Friday, March 17, 2017 @ 8:54 AM

Top 10 risk management tips for charities, not-for-profits

Charities and not-for-profits (NFPs) face increasing challenges in delivering their services to their members and the public, in part because of a more litigious reality and complicated regulatory environment. As such, charities and NFPs need to be familiar with an array of legal requirements that they need to comply with. ... [read more]

Thursday, March 16, 2017 @ 8:53 AM

Law Society should leave referral fees alone | Darryl Singer

You would think from all the media hype and law society pronouncements, that the concept of referral fees among lawyers was a bad thing that harmed innocent clients. In fact, the reverse is true. ... [read more]

Tuesday, March 14, 2017 @ 10:44 AM

Aird & Berlis adds four partners to tax, estates group

Four new partners have joined Aird & Berlis LLP’s tax and estates group, Neil Bass, Rachel Blumenfeld,  Ed Esposto and Angelo Gentile. ... [read more]

Thursday, March 09, 2017 @ 8:36 AM

How the courts hold expert witnesses' feet to the fire

In an adversarial environment, lawyers on both sides will endeavour to put their best foot forward on behalf of their clients. However, experts are always expected to provide the court with unbiased, non-partisan opinion evidence. Recent judicial decisions have helped identify situations of bias and helped to clarify circumstances when the court may choose to include or exclude an expert’s evidence. ... [read more]

Tuesday, March 07, 2017 @ 12:02 AM

Rethink the billable hour to give middle class access to justice | Julius Melnitzer

The best thing the legal profession’s regulators could do to ensure access to justice for the middle class is to ban hourly billing — or at least mandate some sense into its use. ... [read more]

Thursday, February 23, 2017 @ 7:00 PM

News

Not applicable ... [read more]

Thursday, February 09, 2017 @ 7:00 PM

SCC benefits ruling seen as consumer win

In a win for consumers and injured plaintiffs across Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled 7-0 that insurers can’t reduce their excess insurance payouts under their auto policies’ standard endorsement form 44 by the amount of plaintiffs’ Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. ... [read more]

Thursday, February 09, 2017 @ 7:00 PM

Insurance Law - AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE - Uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage

Appeal by Sabean from a judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal setting aside a trial judge decision holding that future Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits were not to be deducted from the amount payable under Sabean’s excess insurance policy. Sabean was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2004. In May 2013, a jury awarded Sabean damages for his injuries in the amount of $465,400. The amount he received from the tortfeasor’s insurer was about $382,000, leaving a shortfall of more than $83,000, which Sabean claimed under the excess coverage provisions of his SEF 44 Endorsement with Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Company (Portage). Clause 4(b)(vii) of the Endorsement stipulated that amounts recoverable under “any policy of insurance providing disability benefits or loss of income benefits or medical expense or rehabilitation benefits” were to be deducted from the shortfall of the damages awarded in determining the amount payable by the insurer to the eligible claimant. Sabean was entitled to receive future CPP disability benefits. Portage claimed that those amounts were to be deducted as recoverable benefits from a “policy of insurance” under clause 4(b)(vii) in determining the amount payable by Portage. Sabean disagreed. The trial judge in this case found that CPP benefits were not benefits from a “policy of insurance” under the Endorsement and thus would not be deducted from the amount payable by the insurer. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the CPP was a “policy of insurance” under the Endorsement. The issue in this appeal was whether the CPP was a “policy of insurance providing disability benefits” within the meaning of clause 4(b)(vii) of the SEF 44 Endorsement. ... [read more]

Thursday, February 09, 2017 @ 10:59 AM

B.C. organization offers online small claims resolution tool

The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) is offering an online tool to help small claims litigants settle disputes among themselves. ... [read more]