Can an insurer deny all Section B benefits if an insured agrees to attend an independent medical examination on conditions that conflict with the examining medical practitioner's protocol? The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently considered this question and answered in the affirmative. While the decision was specific to Section B claims, the broader takeaway is equally instructive: relying on the clear terms of a policy does not necessarily impugn the duty of utmost good faith.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has clarified its application of the Supreme Court's decision in Family Insurance Corp v Lombard Canada Ltd in instances of overlapping insurance policies with "other insurance clauses" covering the same loss. The court determined that the analysis in instances of overlapping coverage comes down to whether there was overlapping coverage and whether the insurers intended to limit their obligation to contribute, and by what method and in what circumstances, in relation to the insured.
A plaintiff recently claimed indemnification under a residential insurance policy when unknown persons broke into her garage and stole items, including prop guns. Although the court found that the plaintiff had an insurable interest in the prop guns, it found that she was not entitled to be indemnified for their loss because they belonged to another individual who had not been a roomer or boarder.
The Alberta Court of Appeal has revisited the question of directors' personal liability for injuries sustained in a workplace incident. The key question was whether a corporate representative was personally liable for damage resulting from their own tortious conduct while acting as a representative for the corporation. As the applicable tests for determining personal liability remain unclear, this will continue to be a difficult issue for directors to navigate.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently provided a comprehensive judicial review of a jurisdictional challenge to an arbitral award. This decision will be of interest not only to car manufacturers, but also to most parties subject to an arbitration agreement. However, the broader takeaway from this case is that non-compliance with the Arbitration Act is not a ground for review. Therefore, jurisdictional challenges must be brought at the beginning of hearings.
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently clarified the test for summary judgment applications. The court noted the rift that has emerged in case law while discussing the standard of proof that is required in a summary judgment application. In particular, it held that the reliance on the conventional trial no longer reflects modern reality and must be readjusted in favour of more proportionate, timely and affordable procedures.
For the first time, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has released a decision that considers issues of statutory misrepresentation in an offering statement under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act 1994. Given the limited jurisprudence in this area, this landmark decision is expected to provide valuable guidance to boards and insurers on risk prevention.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently provided clarity on the sentencing principles in Occupational Health and Safety Act cases. The court clarified that just because jail terms are rare does not mean that they should not be imposed. In its decision, the court discussed the principles of sentencing for regulatory offences at length and recognised the primacy of fines over incarceration in sentencing (ie, in most cases, fines will be more appropriate than jail time).
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently outlined when specific performance will be available in a real estate transaction. This decision is a stark reminder of the pitfalls of acting both in bad faith and without diligence in respect of such a transaction. It is also a reminder that a party to an agreement of purchase and sale cannot insist that time is of the essence if (among other things) it breaches the agreement and does not act in good faith.
In negligence-based actions, defendants routinely issue third-party claims for contribution and indemnity to reduce their liability exposure. As a result, a plaintiff can commence a claim believing certain defendants to have caused its loss but, after successive third-party claims, learn that several other persons might have contributed to the loss. The Ontario Superior Court recently reviewed the law of discoverability with respect to third parties.
In R v Barra the Ontario Superior Court of Justice convicted two businesspeople on charges of bribing foreign public officials in India. This judgment appears to have crept under the radar, but is notable in the context of the enforcement of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act because of the court's views on who is a foreign public official and the requirement that the Crown prove that the accused had knowledge of this status.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released a significant decision that expands occupiers' liability for violence on their premises and affirms a new privacy tort that censures the publication of aspects of an individual's private life without their consent. The decision establishes a novel cause of action for claims arising from the distribution of an individual's private information – in this case, a sexually explicit video of the plaintiff without her knowledge or consent.
Designated beneficiaries of a life insurance policy have traditionally had a high degree of certainty that they would be entitled to the policy proceeds on the death of the insured. However, this certainty has been jeopardised by a recent Supreme Court of Canada case where a former wife's prior contractual claim to the proceeds of her former husband's life insurance policy precluded his common-law spouse's entitlement to the proceeds as the irrevocable beneficiary.
The recent growth and sophistication of modern fraud and cybersecurity attacks have necessitated adaptable countermeasures by for-profit and non-profit organisations. Of these countermeasures, the emergence of niche cybercrime and fraud insurance (eg, cyber liability insurance) has given credence to the ethos that cybersecurity breaches are not a matter of if but when. A recent case considered the limits of a funds transfer fraud policy and highlights the importance of reading insurance policies carefully.
A recent Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta decision provides clarity amidst the conflicting jurisprudential landscape regarding whether the assessment of damages for a termination without cause is appropriate for summary judgment. The court supported a master's finding that an assessment of damages for pay in lieu of reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal is inappropriate for summary judgment.
A recent case examined the apportionment of liability for damages between multiple defendants where at least one of them is statutorily immune from liability. The court considered whether an employer can be held vicariously liable for damages caused by its employee's negligence when the injured party, the employee and the employer are subject to the Workers' Compensation Act.
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently ruled on the tendering of a contract that will be of interest to owners and contractors alike. The court upheld an owner's right to rely on privilege and discretion clauses and a description of the relevant evaluation criteria in the tender documents, as well as its right to take a nuanced view of the costs to choose the contractor that it considered best suited to the project.
For many junior resource company executives, deciding whether to engage investment finders can be like considering whether to breathe air. Such companies tend to have early-stage projects that do not warrant debt financing and therefore need equity injections, but lack the profile needed to attract traditional investment dealers. However, working with finders entails navigating the 'exempt' market, which can be hazardous to the ill-informed.
The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) recently prosecuted three workers who were receiving WSIB benefits for failing to report a material change with respect to their benefit entitlement. The WSIB argued that it was not required to prove that the workers had intended to defraud the board. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed and held that to obtain a conviction for failing to report a material change, prosecutors must prove something akin to tax evasion or fraud.
The expansion of recognised duties of care owed to intoxicated persons recently met resistance from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The plaintiff in the case was one of four intoxicated passengers in a taxi who had been injured after the taxi was involved in an accident. The court centred its decision on the evidentiary record in the case, which established no reasonable basis for the plaintiff's expectation that the taxi driver would ensure that he wore his seatbelt.