"If one voluntarily picks up a stem with thorns, one is also voluntarily, and necessarily, picking up the thorns," outlined the Alberta Court of King's Bench (the "ABKB")...

The decision evaluated the liability of Starbucks in a situation where a customer slipped on a city sidewalk just outside of the business' premises. The incident occurred at a Starbucks location in Toronto...

The recent decision, C.M. v P.M., the Health Professionals Appeal and Review Board confirmed a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Kinesiologists of Ontario.

Following up our recent article on Business Interruption amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the March 30, 2020, Ontario Superior Court decision MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company...

There can be no doubt that cyberbullying is a new and disturbing development that significantly impacts society these days. In a 2009 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada reported that 7% of adult internet users were cyberbullied.

The recent case of Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company v. Intact Financial Corp

In doing this, however, it introduced new procedural hurdles that insurers must overcome in order to properly deny treatment plans.

There have been a number of motions to strike jury notices throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many of which resulted in jury notices being struck.

In its recent summary judgment decision, Janssen v. William and Markle Jewellers Ltd.,1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered the scope of control required for a commercial owner

If the parties have expressly agreed to notice terms in the employment contract, then the court will enforce those terms.

Among the notable changes is the introduction of the concept of good faith.

On November 18, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision on whereby an insurer may be allowed to deny coverage based on a policy breach discovered several years down the road.

In order to determine whether or not subrogation is a viable option with respect to any loss, it is first necessary to consider the cause of the loss, followed closely by who is responsible for the loss.

The recent Ontario Superior Court decision, Lavender v Miller Bernstein, serves as a reminder – and a warning – that the Canadian jurisprudence is beginning to recognize a cause of action in negligence emerging from a negligent misrepresentation where the representor owes a duty of care to the representee.

Ontario's dual framework for compensating motor vehicle collision victims creates a stark divide between tort law's principle of full compensation and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule's cost-containment approach.

In December 2024, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario ("FSRA") published the 2025 monetary thresholds and deductibles for non-pecuniary general damages...

Insurers and banks function on personal information; insurers require that information to underwrite and adjust, and banks to assess risk.

Diminished value claims for property damage to automobiles are statutorily barred by section 263 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released a trial decision where Martin Smith, partner at the Ottawa office of McCague Borlack LLP, with the assistance of Desneiges Mitchell, associate, successfully defended a chiropractic malpractice case where the plaintiff (Patient*) sued the defendant (Defendant Chiropractor*) for negligence and battery for alleged improper chiropractic treatments.

In a recent Court of Appeal decision, the Court upheld the defendant occupiers' successful summary judgment motion in a trip-and-fall case.