Stay informed with the latest insights and updates

Recent case law offers important guidance on the dichotomy of contractual limitation clauses in insurance policies, balancing the rights of insured parties with insurers’ ability to impose shorter timelines. Courts have emphasized that such clauses must be clearly worded and contextually appropriate. This article examines key court decisions, and the variables which impact when, if, and how a contractual limitation will be applicable. 

A powerful reminder for anyone sharing vehicle ownership. Consent from one owner can create liability for all. In Nowakowski v Campbell, 2025 ONCA 762, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a motion judge’s decision that a co-owner of a motor vehicle can be held liable for loss or damage caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle, even if they did not consent to a non-owner using it, so long as another co-owner did provide that consent.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld an auto-insurer’s denial of coverage to a mother-daughter duo who turned a motor vehicle accident into a case of civil fraud. The Court in Wong v Aviva insurance Company of Canada, 2024 ONCA 874 upheld the lower court’s analysis of Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, to determine that lying to your insurer about the driver of the vehicle involved in an accident can constitute civil fraud.

In 2026 the Civil Rules Review Working Group (CRRWG) is looking to bring changes which include the elimination of Examinations for Discovery and replacing it with an early disclosure of all affidavits from all anticipated trial witnesses and documentation to be used at trial. Among the proposed reforms, the elimination of discoveries is by far the most discussed and striking proposal for litigators. Without oral testimony prior to trial, lawyers lose the critical opportunity to assess a plaintiff’s credibility and identify inconsistencies in their affidavits or documents. With trial being the first time evidence is heard, both parties may face unexpected developments, making it harder to anticipate and counter arguments. The elimination of discovery also removes the ability to request undertakings for key documents. Under the proposed 'documentary disclosure', there’s concern that parties may withhold materials that could support the opposing case. Without the mechanism of undertakings, obtaining crucial evidence may become significantly more challenging.

In May 2024, in the case of Walpole v. Crisol, 2024 ONCA 400 (“Walpole”) , the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “Court”) was tasked with making a crucial determination of whether a landlord could be held liable for damages caused by a tenant’s dog.  An improper decision risked opening the flood gates to landlords being forced to assume the role of insurers.

Anatomy of a Trial 2024 not only allowed participants to fulfill all of their annual Law Society of Ontario’s Continuing Professional Development (CPD) hours but also equipped them with essential skills for modern trial practice. This year’s theme emphasized the pivotal role that narrative plays in effectively communicating a client’s case to the decision-makers at trial.  The enthusiasm generated by Anatomy of a Trial 2024 sets high expectations for next year’s program.

The decision in Stewart v. Bay of Quinte Mutual Insurance Co. provides insights into the responsibilities of insurers, particularly in assessing the value of lost property and managing risks. As well, the decision highlights the discretion held by courts in allocating value to lost property, and the underlying public policy considerations in insurance contracts.

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Live Nation Ontario Concerts GP, Inc. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2024 ONCA 634 (CanLII) (“Live Nation v. Aviva”) demonstrates that the concepts of risk allocation and equitable contribution are different. Assuming the risk of a certain amount of defence costs via an SIR does not turn an insured into an insurer. The concept of equitable contribution is a remedy between insurers and ought not to be applied between an insurer and an insured. 

As defence counsel, we are always dealing with what can be deducted from any settlement and award and the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court provides some direction on the deductibility of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) in a motor vehicle accident.

In Ontario civil litigation, actions concerning coverage disputes and uninsurable losses can dominate the legal landscape, specifically concerning the interpretation of the duties and obligations of an insurance broker. It is critical for both insureds (individuals or companies with insurance policies) and brokers to understand the specific duties and obligations that are required in a customer-broker relationship.

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.

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

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.

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.

Third party claims are intricately connected to allegations pleaded in the statement of claim. When a plaintiff does not claim damages from anyone other than the defendant, the defendant cannot pursue a claim for contribution and indemnity. An employer may find themselves unable to pursue a third party claim against a disability benefits provider when the plaintiff seeks recovery for disability benefits in the context of a wrongful termination action.

So-called “long-tail claims”, i.e. claims where the alleged damage spans a number of years, pose various coverage challenges for insurers and policyholders. On February 27, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Loblaw Companies Limited v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2024 ONCA 145 (CanLII) (“Loblaw”), where it tried to bring some clarity to some of the material coverage issues that arise with these types of claims.

What is a corporation’s obligations when a unit owner complains about noise from another unit owner?

Legal arguments over the meaning of a single term may seem like little more than semantic squabbles to those unfamiliar with insurance law. However, small interpretative disputes are often at the center of high-value insurance claims. The analysis of these disputes frequently determines whether the case ends in a big payout, or with a justifiably denied claim.

A profile to get to know the OBA Insurance Law Executive. This focus is on Tracey L. Hamilton, Senior Litigation Counsel at Beneva Insurance (Beneva Lawyers).

A recent decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal provides guidance on the responsibility of occupiers for natural hazards on their premises.

Insurers should pay careful attention to the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Baker v. Blue Cross Insurance Company of Canada which upheld a significant jury verdict in the amount of $1,500,000 in punitive damages and approximately another $1,000,000 in full indemnity fees and disbursements against the long-term disability benefits insurer. This article provides a discussion of the insurance dispute and key takeaways for insurers and litigants engaged in insurance claims disputes.

A profile to get to know the OBA Insurance Law Executive. This focus is on Marcus Knapp, Counsel at Ricketts Harris LLP.

In Pridmore v. Drenth 2023 ONCA 606, the Ontario Court of Appeal illuminates the complex issue of whether the mistaken belief that a highway is a road will operate to vitiate third-party insurance coverage. The Court of Appeal provides insight into when courts will allow relief from forfeiture.