Fido – Friend or Foe?
Dogs are a woman’s (or man’s) best friend, right? But what happens if Cuddles decides to turn into Cujo?
Apples to Apples vs the ” Silo Approach” – What are the differences?
Cadieux v. Cloutier 2018 ONCA 903
The Court of Appeal released its decision in Cadieux v. Cloutier (“Cadieux”) in December 2018. This case concerns a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff, Chad Cadieux, suffered brain injuries after he was pushed onto the road by one of the defendants, Eric Saywell and struck by the truck of a second defendant, Mr. Cloutier.
Sealing off the court from the public eye – what is the risk v. benefit?
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sherman Estate v. Donovan 2021 SCC 25 in June of 2021. This case concerns the unresolved homicide of Bernard and Honey Sherman, who were found dead in their Toronto home in December of 2017. The couple’s estate and estate trustees attempted to stem the intense press scrutiny prompted by the events. At issue was the probate of a million, if not the billion-dollar estate.
A New Benchmark for Family Law Act Damages
Samantha Cain The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Moore v. 7595611 Canada Corp. earlier this year. This case concerned the unfortunate and untimely death of the plaintiffs’ daughter, Alisha Lamers, who died in a fire. Alisha was an only child to...
Should they stay or should they go? A cautionary tale about witness exclusions.
It is a fundamental principle of common law that court proceedings are open to the public. There are, of course, factors and circumstances that necessitate a departure from this principle. For example, the exclusion of witnesses for a trial until they are called to give evidence is meant to avoid witnesses giving “tainted” evidence that is influenced by other testimony or court proceedings.
When is an Insured Vehicle Not Really an Insured Vehicle?
The cases of Skunk v. Ketash, released on March 22, 2016, and Fosker v. Thorpe, released in 2004, are an interesting example of two judges finding their way to opposite conclusions on similar facts. In both cases, the plaintiff was injured in an accident which occurred during an alleged theft of the plaintiff’s own insured vehicle.[1] In both cases, liability coverage was unavailable to the alleged thief. In both cases, the insurer of the vehicle argued that uninsured motorist protection was not available to the plaintiff because the stolen vehicle was insured, not uninsured. Interestingly, as indicated, the outcome of the two cases was different.
Recent Comments