The Appellant’s final argument was that there was “a material distinction between her intention to obtain the Percocet pills and her intentions regarding the patients’ records” [para 66]. In effect, she tried to argue that her accessing patient records was an “unintended consequence of her intentional conduct to obtain the pills” [para 66]. The Court...Read More

Searles v Economical Insurance, 2022 ONSC 7217. Reading Time: 3 minutes (approx.) By: Weston McArthur (Articled Clerk) Christine and Darrell Searles, the Applicants, had a home insurance policy with Economical Mutual. Eventually, the Applicants sold their home. In 2013, the purchaser of the home sued the Applicants for damages, alleging that home renovations done by...Read More

Bains v Cheema, 2022 BCCA 430. Reading Time: 5 minutes (approx.) By: Weston McArthur (Articled Clerk) Dilsher Cheema was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident that took place on January 28, 2018. Liability was not in issue, and the trial judge awarded the Plaintiff $102,062.86 in overall damages, $50,000 of which was awarded for...Read More

Whalen & Chaisson v Allstate et al, 2022 NBKB 233 Reading Time: 3 minutes (approx.) By: Chloe Jardine (Articled Clerk) A dispute between Peter Whalen and Nicole Chiasson (“the Plaintiffs”) and their insurer, Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (“the Defendant”) regarding restoration costs to the Plaintiffs’ property following a flood resulted in the filing of...Read More

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v Macdonald, 2022 NBCA 68 Reading Time: 3 minutes (approx.) By: Chloe Jardine (Articled Clerk) In the November edition of “In Brief,” we reported on MacDonald v. Aviva, 2022 NBQB 140. In that case, Joyce MacDonald, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, was found to be entitled to...Read More

Doucette v City of Charlottetown, 2022 PESC 11 Reading Time: 3 minutes By: Chloe Jardine (Articled Clerk) Gail Doucette (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against the City of Charlottetown (“the City”) following an oil leak at the Sherwood Recreation Hall in 2013. The Plaintiff, who had been residing in her home since 1982, was informed of...Read More

AIG Insurance Company of Canada v Lloyd’s Underwriters, 2022 ONCA 699. Reading Time: 4 minutes By: Weston McArthur (Articled Clerk) The Forgets owned a home in Timmins, Ontario, which they moved into in 2013. Three years after they moved in, the home experienced progressive damage due to land erosion and instability. The homeowners sued the...Read More

Emond v Trillium Mutual Insurance Company, 2022 ONSC 5519. Reading time: 6 minutes (approx.) By: Weston McArthur (Articled Clerk) In April 2019, the Emonds’ home was washed into the Ottawa River by flooding. The Emonds had a homeowners’ insurance policy with Trillium Mutual Insurance Company (“Trillium”). This policy included guaranteed rebuilding cost coverage (“GRC”). The...Read More

Ballam Insurance Services Limited v Fundy Computer Services Ltd., 2022 NSSC 277     Reading Time: 5 minutes (approx.)    By: Chloe Jardine (Articled Clerk)     Fundy Computer Services Ltd. and Atlantic Datasystems Inc. (collectively “the  Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss an action filed by Ballam Insurance Services Limited  (“the Plaintiff”) on October 4, 2011. The Defendants provided information technology  services to the Plaintiff in 2010 and 2011, from which a dispute arose over server issues. An  Amended Notice of Action was filed by the Plaintiff on January 23, 2014, and Examination  for Discovery was held June 18-19, 2014.     The Defendants argued that the last meaningful step taken by the Plaintiff occurred on  February 17, 2016, when the Plaintiff partially fulfilled their Discovery undertakings. The  Plaintiff argues there had been further efforts made to advance the action including obtaining  an expert. Further, the Plaintiff argued that any delays were out of their control due to their  original expert changing employment in 2017, staffing changes at their legal counsel’s office,  the COVID-19 pandemic delaying the process of hiring a new expert, and the Defendants not  making the original physical server and associated software/logs available to the Plaintiff.     When considering whether to dismiss an action for delay, the Court must determine:  (1) if there was an excessive delay; (2) if this delay was excusable; (3) if this delay presents a  substantial risk of an unfair trial or prejudice against the Defendant(s), and (4) in the presence  of such a risk, what outcome is just when considering the interests of both parties.     The Court clearly stated that there was an excessive delay in this action. Discovery  had concluded eight years prior, yet undertakings had not been fulfilled. Further, no expert  report had been presented by the Plaintiff notwithstanding their subsequent expert had been  hired nearly two years prior.     When such a delay is found, the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove that this delay was  reasonably excusable. The Court found that while the delays argued by the Plaintiff likely  impacted their ability to move the action forward, the Plaintiff had not satisfied the Court/  that these factors were entirely responsible for the extensive delays occurring in this matter.  The Plaintiff could not explain why there has yet to be an expert report produced or why  nearly half of their undertakings remain unfulfilled.     Even with the finding of an excessive and inexcusable delay, the Court found there  was no risk to the fairness of a trial. The Defendant argued that “there can be no doubt that  the memories of those involved have faded.” The Court was not satisfied, as the Defendant  did not identify key witnesses impacted by the delay or how this would result in a risk of an  unfair trial or prejudice to the Plaintiff. With this finding, the Court did not need to consider  what a just outcome would be in this case.         The motion was dismissed, and the 11-year-old action was allowed to continue with  trial dates scheduled for February and March 2024. The Court imposed deadlines on both  parties to fulfil undertakings and produce reports to force the matter forward as the trial dates  approach.     Link:  https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2022/2022nssc277/2022nssc277.html?autocompleteStr=2022%20NSSC%20277&autocompletePos=1Read More

MacDonald v Aviva, 2022 NBQB 140    Reading Time: 2 minutes (approx.)    By: Chloe Jardine (Articled Clerk)     Joyce MacDonald (“the Plaintiff”) suffered injuries as a result of a motor vehicle  accident on February 7, 2011. Due to her injuries, she was unable to return to her job as a  nurse at Campbellton Regional Hospital for 104 weeks. The Plaintiff received Section B loss  of income benefits from Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (“the Defendant”) during this  period.     After 104 weeks, the Plaintiff returned to work through a gradual return to work  program. The Plaintiff continued to work for a period of 13 months, before she had to stop  working permanently due to her injuries in September 2014. She attempted to resume her  Section B weekly payments, claiming she was prevented from pursuing employment due to  her injuries, but this request was denied by the Defendant. The parties turned to the Court to  determine if the Plaintiff was entitled to continue receiving these benefits given that she had  returned to work for over a year following the accident.      To make this determination, the Court needed to ascertain whether the Plaintiff’s  injuries had “continuously” prevented her from working. The Plaintiff argued that, though  she returned to work, she was never able to successfully fulfil her expected duties as a result  of the injuries sustained. The Court found that a failed attempt to return to work, regardless of  the length of said return period, should not prevent an insured from being eligible to receive  further weekly benefits.      The Court found the insurance policy to be ambiguous, so the interpretation was  found to be in favour of the Plaintiff. With this, the Plaintiff was entitled to weekly Section B  retroactively to September 2014. On October 19, 2022, a motion for leave to appeal was  allowed and we will update our readers on the result of the appeal.      Link:  https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/2022/2022nbqb140/2022nbqb140.html?autocompleteStr=2022%20nbqb%20140&autocompletePos=1  Read More