Articles 2021

This article presents an overview of the powers and duties of municipalities under the Building Code Act and the Ontario Building Code, provides examples of where municipalities can be vulnerable to liability, and discusses the view of the Canadian Courts on municipal liability.

Municipalities are being kept on their toes with the recent Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) decision in R v Greater Sudbury (City). The SCC held that owners of a construction project fall within the definition of an “employer” under the Occupation Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) and are subject to the required duties and liabilities of an employer. Moving forward, municipalities will have a difficult time insulating themselves from liability under the OHSA when contracting out services.

It is expected that prior to any elective treatment, a physician owes a duty to the patient to provide adequate disclosure of risks. This duty has been expanded over the years to include all advising doctors, even if they are not involved in the treatment directly. It has also been expanded to include “disclosing the nature of the proposed treatment and any material, special, or unusual risks of the treatment." The Ontario Court of Appeal recently applied these duties of care.

It is a trite law of human nature that honesty is the best policy. And it is trite law, as in the actual law, that this is especially true for parties entering insurance agreements. In Davies v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, 2024 ONCA 509, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed a decision regarding an insurance coverage determination.

The issue of whether an intentional action can be properly framed in negligence dates back to the seminal case of Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London v. Scalera. Since then, the courts have repeatedly proclaimed that such attempts are futile. However, this has not stopped counsel from attempting to disguise intentional torts as negligence within their pleadings.

Information about two developments at the LAT pertaining to a Preliminary Issue Hearings Practice Direction for AABS matters and the updating of Rule 13 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023.

A Review of the Recent Ontario Court of Appeal Decision in Kolapully v. Myles, 2024

Where claimants are injured by hot liquids or coffee while inside an automobile, an application for accident benefits was subject to a preliminary motion to determine if an “accident” occurred pursuant to s.3(1) of the SABS.

Bifurcation is a rarely utilized but effective procedural tool commonly used to sever a trial into two separate phases: liability and damages.

The recent decision of Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex brings a much needed addition to the caselaw pertaining to the proper approach for judicial review of administrative decisions. While a court does have discretion to hear an application for judicial review and decide issues on the merits, including whether to deny relief, this discretion does not extend to declining consideration of the application for judicial review altogether.