Articles 2023

In an interview with Insurance Law Section member-at large Harold Geller, Sandra LeBrun, in-house counsel at Aviva Trial Lawyers (Ottawa Office), talks about her career path, her involvement in the insurance bar and broader legal community, her most memorable court appearance, her advice for junior lawyers, and more.

As we enter 2022, some parties have had their trials adjourned multiple times due to the changing COVID-19 situation, and judges continue to be faced with the decision of how best to deliver just and fair adjudication of civil matters. One year after Poitras was decided we are taking a look back at this important decision and some of the motions that have been decided since.

On November 18, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision on whereby an insurer may be allowed to deny coverage based on a policy breach discovered several years down the road.

The progress made over the pandemic to use technology to make the civil legal system more efficient, affordable, and accessible shall hopefully continue.  This article will set out benefits and drawbacks of virtual examinations for discovery, draw the reader’s attention to four decisions dealing with virtual examinations, provide key takeaways from these decisions, and share resources to assist in conducting a virtual examination.

The release of MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company from the Ontario Court of Appeal, rounded out 2021 with another major insurance-related appellate decision primarily authored by Justice Julie Thorburn (also responsible for crafting the written reasons in the seminal multi-insurer coverage decision, Markham (City) v. AIG released in mid-2020). This article summarizes why the MDS v. Factory Mutual decision is important for any insurance-related and contractual interpretation dispute.

An insurer requests the Court of Appeal rewrite an exclusion in the insurer’s favour.

Who should be responsible for paying for productions prior to examinations for discovery in personal injury matters? It is my position that the onus of proof remains with the Plaintiff and that, therefore, they should be producing documentation to substantiate the claims advanced in the Statement of Claim. Why should the Defendant pay for productions to assist the Plaintiff’s claim? In the decision of Rheaume v. Foster, we received some more clarity on this issue.

The Ontario Bar Association’s Neutral Diversity Committee has crafted a survey to collect information about OBA member experiences and views in relation to mediator and arbitrator diversity. OBA members engaged in litigation, mediation and arbitration are invited to share their views.

The significant lengthening of civil proceedings has naturally led to an extraordinary increase in legal costs associated with these cases. Our law respecting Offers to Settle is designed to make the loser pay the winner’s legal fees. This creates significant risk in almost every personal injury case. Because of the increased expense of trials, settlement at private mediation must almost always be considered.