Roger Chown Appointed to the Bench
Our former partner Roger Chown was appointed to the bench on October 2, 2020, and as a result, as of that date, he is no longer a partner in the firm.
Layoffs and COVID 19
If you’re an employee or an employer, then in between sessions of binge watching of Tiger King, you might be pondering how the COVID-19 pandemic will affect the employment relationship.
As an employer, you may have concerns about budgetary constraints, and the possible implications of having to lay off employees in a time of crisis.
Road Access Dispute?
If you find a road that you commonly use to access your cottage blocked or you are considering blocking other motorists from using an access road which crosses your property, you should understand the effect of the Road Access Act.
Court of Appeal Adjusts Standard Jury Charge in Rear-End Collisions
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently mandated a small adjustment to the standard jury charge in rear-end motor vehicle accidents.[1] The court also strongly confirmed that when one car runs into another from behind, the driver of the rear car has the onus to satisfy the court that the collision did not occur as a result of his negligence.
Plaintiffs’ Entitlement to Surveillance Particulars Bolstered, Supplementary Affidavit of Documents Requirements Muddled
In Iannarella v. Corbett 2015 ONCA 110, released February 17, 2015, the Court of Appeal has bolstered the right of plaintiffs to obtain surveillance particulars, but in doing so it seems to have unnecessarily created a serious problem: it held that a party is obliged by a combination of rules 30.06 and 30.07(b) to provide an updated affidavit of documents listing any surveillance reports (and therefore presumably any privileged documents) created after the party’s affidavit of documents has been sworn. Lawyers may be kept busy preparing updated affidavits of documents.
Defending an Action Without an Insured? When a Claim is Served Upon the Insurer by Substituted Service, Where the Rules and Practice Should, Could or Might Lead.
The issue of plaintiff’s counsel serving their statement of claim directly upon a defendant’s insurer, by way of an order for substituted service, has been around for some time.
The leading case on the issue is Laframboise v. Woodward (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 338, 2002 CarswellOnt 1448 (Ont. S.C.J.)
It has no history. It does not have negative treatment. It has not been distinguished or overruled.
In the decision Justice Quinn decides to summarize the state of the law on the issue and make very pointed comments on the proper procedure to be followed in obtaining such an order.
Recent Comments