Articles

About Articles The following articles are published by the Insurance Law Section of the Ontario Bar Association. Members are encouraged to submit articles. About Articles

Editors: Sudevi Mukherjee‐Gothi and Tracey Hamilton

Today
Today
Insurance Limitation Periods: 2015

Insurance Limitation Periods: 2015

  • March 29, 2016
  • Debra E. Rolph

Debra E. Rolph of LawPRO has authored a paper concerning notable insurance limitation period cases and also discusses some outstanding “problem” areas. Ms. Rolph’s paper has been divided into 4 parts: Part 1: Discoverability; Part 2: Pleadings and Procedural Issues; Part 3: Insurance Contracts; and Part 4: “Problem” Areas and Conclusion.

Insurance Law
Insurance Limitation Cases Part 2: Pleadings and Procedural Issues

Insurance Limitation Cases Part 2: Pleadings and Procedural Issues

  • March 29, 2016
  • Debra E. Rolph

In 2015, the Courts continued to build on the limitations law decided in previous years, not only concerning discoverability generally, but also in the context of professional malpractice, disability insurance, OPCF 44R and uninsured motorist coverages, and relief from forfeiture. The Court of Appeal definitively determined that laches has no application to claims governed by the Limitations Act 2002.

Insurance Law
Insurance Limitation Cases Part 3: Insurance Contracts

Insurance Limitation Cases Part 3: Insurance Contracts

  • March 29, 2016
  • Debra E. Rolph

Discussions concerning insurance contracts including: Contracting Out; Disability Insurance; OPCF 44R and Unidentified, Uninsured Claims; Comprehensive Policies – Casualty Coverage; SABs; Relief from Forfeiture; Laches and Acquiescence in the Insurance Context; and Estoppel and Fraudulent Concealment.

Insurance Law
Case Summary on <em>Dams v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Company</em>

Case Summary on Dams v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Company

  • March 29, 2016
  • Kathleen Erin Cullin

This Court of Appeal decision arises as a result of the Defendant insurer’s denial of the Plaintiff’s claim under the Uninsured Automobile Coverage provisions of his auto insurance policy. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff had failed to comply with the reporting requirements pursuant to the policy. The Plaintiff sought relief from forfeiture.

Insurance Law
Message from the Chair

Message from the Chair

  • January 28, 2016

An New Year's update from OBA Insurance Law Section Chair, Audrey Ramsay.

Insurance Law
Case Comment: <em>Strauss v. Aviva</em>

Case Comment: Strauss v. Aviva

  • January 05, 2016
  • Lawrence Conmigo

When dealing with limitation periods, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that, so long as there is a valid refusal, the limitation period should be strictly applied. In the case of Strauss v Aviva, 2015 ONSC 4589, Justice Braid dealt with the limitation period in disputing non-earner benefits as well as the lack of Disability Certificates endorsing the disputed benefit.

Insurance Law
Case Commentary on <em>Cobb v. Long Estate</em>

Case Commentary on Cobb v. Long Estate

  • January 05, 2016
  • Shane Katz

Despite the recent decision in El-Khodr v. Lackie, 2015 ONSC 4766 [El-Khodr], courts are still being requested to determine the appropriate deductible for general damages and pre-judgment interest on general damages in matters relating to motor vehicle accidents that commenced prior to the January 1, 2015, amendment to the Insurance Act.

Insurance Law
Judicial Sanction of Uncivil and Unprofessional Conduct (Republished from February 8, 2012)

Judicial Sanction of Uncivil and Unprofessional Conduct (Republished from February 8, 2012)

  • January 05, 2016
  • Jennifer Ip and Daniel Naymark

Much has been said and written in recent years about the importance of civility and professionalism from a normative standpoint: lawyers owe a moral and ethical duty to treat the litigation process and the actors interested therein with a suitable degree of respect, all of whom, lawyers included, benefit as a result of the collegial and effective atmosphere that results from a civil, professional approach.

Insurance Law
Rule 2.1 and Catch-22 – Dismissing a Proceeding that is Frivolous or Vexatious on its Face

Rule 2.1 and Catch-22 – Dismissing a Proceeding that is Frivolous or Vexatious on its Face

  • January 05, 2016
  • Frank Caruso and Tony Antoniou

Less than a year and a half since it came into force, a substantial body of case law has grown around Rule 2.1, providing some guidance as to the test and procedures applicable under the Rule. The Court of Appeal, with its recent decision in Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, has now explicitly endorsed this new body of law.

Insurance Law