3,820 results found

For the first time since the Minor Injury Regulation (MIR) came into force in 2004 there has been a change to the definition of what constitutes a minor injury.

In Mustafi v. All-Pitch Roofing Ltd., 2013 ABQB 40, an employer escaped vicarious liability for the negligence of an employee who was driving a vehicle owned by the employer.

The Court found that the limitations clock began to run once payment of benefits ceased.

The Ontario Court of Appeal released a significant decision which will severely restrict insurers from bringing subrogated claims where their insureds have covenanted to obtain insurance for their property.

Les sujets brûlants comme la cybersécurité, les changements climatiques.

Insurance claims play a vital role in the insurance industry, serving as a financial safety net for policyholders during challenging times. They offer a sense of security and provide individuals and businesses...

In an October 3, 2016 preliminary issue hearing Adjudicator Marzinotto of the License Appeal Tribunal allowed an applicant to proceed to a hearing disputing both entitlement to Income Replacement Benefits and Non Earner Benefits.

With summer around the corner, families will be preparing for summer road trips and be spending quality time together.

Concerns about "double counting" in the context of catastrophic impairment determination under the various versions of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule are nothing new.

On October 29, 2009, the Court of Appeal rendered a judgment in Hôtel Fairmount Inc. Société en commandite Manoir Richelieu vs. Schecter dealing with the duty to defend.

Any fool with $250 and a typewriter can sue anybody. In my own practice I have seen a structural engineer sued over building envelope defects, a mechanical engineer sued over structural defects...

Facebook pages should not be immune from the rules governing discovery. They should be treated like personal journals or diaries.

On July 9, 2010, the Federal Court of Canada restricted the scope of the definition of "commercial activity" under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), when it was asked to determine whether the provisions of PIPEDA apply to evidence collected by an insurer, on behalf of an insured, in a tort action.

On July 9, 2010, the Federal Court of Canada restricted the scope of the definition of "commercial activity" under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), when it was asked to determine whether the provisions of PIPEDA apply to evidence collected by an insurer, on behalf of an insured, in a tort action.

The Court found that there was no bar and set out a useful summary of the law in this area.

In Linamar Transportation Ltd. v. Johnson ( 2014 ONSC 4415), the Ontario Superior Court and Divisional Court were called upon to consider the meaning of "best-efforts" in the context of the obligation to answer undertakings given on examination for discovery.

On January 1, 2015, new legislation related to the calculation of prejudgment interest for non-pecuniary losses in actions arising from the use or operation of an automobile came into effect.