Articles

A summary of the Ontario Court of Appeal's criminal cases.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Summary of the recent Court of Appeal decision, Fernandes v. Araujo, 2015 ONCA 571

In the July 29, 2015 decision in Lica v. Dhaliwal, Price J ordered that State Farm, the insurer of the Defendants provide the reasons and basis for the denial of coverage. State Farm insured the Defendants in this action. However, State Farm denied coverage and added itself as a statutory third party in the action. State Farm did not provide detailed reasons for the denial of coverage.

The amendments to the Insurance Act and its regulations, increasing the amount of the statutory deductibles in motor vehicle accident cases, took effect as of August 1, 2015.

Most insurance policies contain some variation of the “consent clause.” Generally speaking, these clauses require that an insurer who has extended coverage to a policyholder consent to any proposed settlement. While most insurers believe this provision to be not only enforceable but fundamental to their ability to manage claims on behalf of their policyholders, a recent case from Pennsylvania reminds us that with the right facts and in the right circumstances such clauses can be overcome.