Articles

In the recent decision of CP Food & Beverage, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Company, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada held that coverage was not available under a crime policy where the insured’s employees had defrauded the insured’s customers through misuse of customer credit cards. 

I would like to congratulate our very own Roger Horst and Rafal Szymanski on successfully representing the respondent in Correct Building Corporation v. Lehman. The Court dismissed the appeal against our client and granted our client’s cross-appeal, resulting in a dismissal of all claims against our client by way of summary judgment.

Topics covered this week included franchise law and rescission, liability for wrongful patent enforcement, the duty to defend in the MVA context, family law (custody and access and breach of court orders), securities class actions, and mortgage enforcement. John Polyzogopoulos

On January 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Precision Plating Ltd.’s (“Precision Plating”) application for leave to appeal the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s (“BCCA”) decision in Precision Plating Ltd. v. Axa Pacific Insurance Co., (“Precision Plating v Axa”).

In an explicit repudiation of the widespread societal suspicion of psychiatry and mental illness, in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, the Supreme Court of Canada has refused to impose a requirement for a claimant to prove that he or she has a recognizable psychiatric illness in order to recover damages for mental injury.

The evaluation of any personal injury claim primarily revolves around a question of credibility. The impact of the injuries suffered by one claimant is often significantly different compared to the same injuries suffered by another claimant.

A recent Alberta decision provides a sobering reminder to landlords to comply with the vacancy provisions of their property insurance policies – or else risk losing their insurance coverage. It may also have been a missed opportunity by the insured to invoke a new provision in Alberta’s Insurance Act that allows the court to refrain from applying an “unjust or unreasonable” contractual provision.