Knowledge Centre

On December 19, 2012, the Superior Court delivered an interesting verdict regarding which elements may be analyzed by the Court while ruling on an insurer’s duty to defend. In Immeubles Stageline Inc. v. Distribution Tapico Inc., the Superior Court showed … Read more »

In Branco v. American Home Assurance Company, Cameco Corporation, Kumtor Operating Company and Zurich Life Insurance Company of Canada Limited 2013 SKQB 98, the Plaintiff submitted claims for disability benefits to the Defendant insurers after suffering an injury to his … Read more »

Place Biermans inc. v. C. D., 2013 QCCA 64, 2010 QCCS 4170 On March 7,1999, C. D., aged 15, poured a can of gasoline on the floor of a shed that adjoined a shopping centre.  An hour later, he threw … Read more »

Hammond and Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. DeWolfe, 2012 ABQB 684 Richard Hammond was employed by Syncrude Canada when he was injured in a motor vehicle accident with the Defendant, Patricia DeWolfe. As part of his employment contact with Syncrude, Hammond … Read more »

– McCrimmon v Estate of Hood, 2012 PESC 28

Two separate actions were commenced following a fatal motor vehicle accident. One vehicle was driven by the plaintiff, McCrimmon, and the other was driven
by Hood, who died in the accident. McCrimmon alleged injuries as a result of the accident and commenced an action against Hood’s estate. McCrimmon’s parents also commenced an action against Hood’s estate. The two actions contained overlap in the claims for damages, so Hood’s estate moved to consolidate both actions or, in the alternative, to have both actions heard at the same time, pursuant to Rule 6.01(1)(d) of Prince Edward Island’s Rules of Civil Procedure.

(more…)

– Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v Jacques Home Town Drycleaners, 2013 NSCA 4

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal recently dismissed an insurance company’s appeal of a 10% administration fee in the amount of $66.94 related to repair costs charged by the Province.

(more…)

– Roscoe v Halifax (Regional Municipality), 2013 NSSC 5

At trial, the plaintiff, Roscoe, a retired Nova Scotia Court of Appeal judge, was awarded $30,280.48 at trial against the defendant, Halifax Regional Municipality (“HRM”) for injuries she suffered after slipping on duct tape affixed to the floor of a gym operated by HRM during a badminton game. Although the parties were able to agree to costs, Roscoe submitted that HRM had approached settlement negotiations in an improper manner and, therefore, she was entitled to an additional $10,000.00 as “enhanced” costs. HRM opposed the costs motion.

Read more…

– Quinlan Brothers Limited v Coady, 2012 NLTD(G) 194

This case involved an application pursuant to Rule 20A, seeking an award of costs greater than the party and party costs awarded at trial on the basis that an Offer to Settle, in the amount of $5,000.00, had been made by defendants.

– Guignard v Hall, 2013 NBQB 7

The plaintiff, Guignard, was a passenger in a motor vehicle owned by the defendant, Denis Hall, and operated by the defendant Brian Hall. Guignard was seriously injured when he was thrown through the car windshield after the vehicle struck a telephone pole. Guignard claimed significant damages, the amount of which was in dispute. Although liability was admitted, the Halls argued that Guignard should bear some responsibility for failure to wear a seatbelt and that his damages should be reduced by at least 25% pursuant to section 265.2(1) of the Insurance Act. Also at issue was Guignard’s loss of income as Guignard was an upcoming tattoo artist before the accident and claimed he had planned to open his own tattoo shop.

Read more…

– Performance Factory Inc. v Atlantic Insurance Company Ltd., 2013 NLCA 11

This was an appeal of a trial decision which found that the principal of Performance Factory or his father had set a fire that destroyed their building and, as a result, recovery under an insurance policy with Atlantic Insurance was denied. The issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in his analysis of the case. This was viewed by the majority opinion as a matter of law attracting the standard of review of correctness.

Read more…