McKay v Home Depot of Canada Inc, 2022 NSSC 73.  By: Weston McArthur (Student-at-Law)  Reading Time: 4 Minutes  Sometime in 2016, the McKays (the Plaintiffs) had renovations done to their house that involved  the installation of new hardwood floors and a bathroom shower. They bought everything from  Home Depot (the Defendant), which hired a third party to handle installation.  The Plaintiffs were happy with the renovations. From February 2017 until the end of 2018, they  communicated consistently with the Defendanst about fixing the renovations. While the floors  were eventually replaced, they remained unhappy because the shower issues remained  unresolved.  In December 2018, the Plaintiffs retained legal counsel and sued the Defendant. The Plaintiffs  wanted the Defendant to give them access to various internal correspondences concerning their  case; however, the Defendant claimed litigation privilege over those materials. The materials in  question included, for example, notes that an employee of the Defendant took during the course  of a March 2018 phone call in which the Plaintiff threatened to take the matter to court if not  resolved.  A party relying on litigation privilege does not need to disclose the protected materials to the  opposing party. For litigation privilege to apply, two requirements must be met: firstly, litigation  must be existing or there must be a strong indication that it is imminent; secondly, the primary  reason for creating the document/correspondence must have been in preparation for that  litigation.  The Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled that these notes did not meet the requirements to be  protected by litigation privilege. Firstly, the Plaintiff’s threat was not an indication that litigation  was forthcoming, but was instead within the scope of a frustrated customer lodging a complaint  to a retailer during discussion about resolving that complaint (discussion which continued for  many month before legal counsel was retained). Secondly, the notes were not created for the  purpose of preparing for litigation, but in the course of attempting to resolve the customer’s  complaints without needing to resort to litigation. As it was determined that litigation privilege  did not apply to the materials, the Defendants were required to turn them over to the Plaintiff.  Link: https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2022/2022nssc73/2022nssc73.html?autocompleteStr=mck ay%20v%20home%20dep&autocompletePos=3Read More

Balsom v Rideout, 2022 NLCA 20  By: Weston McArthur (Student-at-Law)  Reading Time: 4 Minutes  On September 1, 2017, Mr. Corey Rideout (the Plaintiff) and Ms. Gail Balsom (the Defendant)  were involved in a motor vehicle accident. On September 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed his claim.  The Defendant took the position that the action was statute-barred pursuant to Newfoundland  and Labrador’s Limitations Act and filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on this basis.  The Act sets out that a potential plaintiff generally must commence an action within two years of  the date that the accident occurred; however, “[t]he limitation period may be extended where the  conduct of the defendant results in a confirmation of the cause of action” per Section 16 of the  Act [para 8].  During the period between September 2017 and September 2019, both sides engaged in some  degree of discussions surrounding a potential settlement. The Plaintiff submitted that this showed  that the Defendant’s insurer had acknowledged his cause of action, and that any settlement  privilege that existed over the correspondence between both parties should be waived. The trial  judge agreed with the Plaintiff’s reasoning and dismissed the Defendant’s application; however,  on appeal, this ruling was overturned.  The Canadian judicial system has limited resources, and Canadian courts are very interested in  seeing litigants settle before they go to trial. If correspondence relating to settlement negotiations  were to be admissible in court, settlement attempts may be discouraged, making settlement  privilege the standard. Exceptions to settlement privilege are very rarely allowed, and only when  “a competing public interest outweighs the public interest in encouraging settlement”, as detailed  in Section 19 of the Act.  To establish whether settlement privilege exists, three requirements must be met: firstly, there  must be litigation/serious contemplation of litigation; secondly, communication between the  parties must be in an effort to negotiate a settlement; and thirdly, communication must be with  the intent that, if settlement is not reached, the correspondence would not be entered into court  record (for example, marking it “without prejudice”).  The appeal judge found that the correspondence between the Plaintiff lawyer and the Defendant’s  insurer fell under settlement privilege without exception. The fact that the Plaintiff would be      statute-barred from pursing his claim was not sufficient reason to waive settlement privilege.  Link: https://records.court.nl.ca/public/supremecourt/decisiondownload/?decision– id=8801&mode=streamRead More

1015581 BC LTD v Chilliwack Insurance Agencies Ltd., 2022 BCSC 100. By: Weston McArthur (Student-at-Law) Reading Time: 2 Minutes Progressive Forest Products Ltd. (the Insured), is a company that specializes in the transportation of logs throughout southern British Columbia. The Insurance Company of British Columbia (the Insurer) provided the Insurer’s insurance, sold by Chilliwack Insurance...Read More

Desjardins General Insurance Group v Campbell, 2022 ONCA 128. By: Weston McArthur (Student-At-Law) Reading Time: 3 Minutes On September 21, 2018, a tornado tore through parts of Ottawa causing damage to homes in affected neighborhoods. Ruth Campbell (the Insured) owned a home that was damaged during this tornado. The Insured had homeowner’s insurance with Desjardins...Read More

IT Haven Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2022 ONCA 71. By: Weston McArthur (Student-at-Law) Reading Time: 6 Minutes In June 2019, Niantic Inc., a video game company, filed a lawsuit against several parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Niantic claimed that IT Haven Inc., a software...Read More

Brousseau Estate v Dubarry Estate, 2022 ABQB 60. By: Weston McArthur (Student-at-Law) Reading Time: 3 Minutes At paragraph 1, W.S. Schlosser, Master of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, summarized this complex, multi-party, multi-action matter: “[h]ere are four competing summary judgement applications in two consolidated actions arising from a fatal plane crash resulting in the...Read More

Costanza v Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance Company, 2022 ONSC 432. By: Weston McArthur (Student-at-Law) Reading Time: 4 Minutes Mr. Dean Costanza (the Insured) took out a life insurance policy with State Farm, which is now Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance Company (the Respondent). When the Insured filed for it, he had to answer a...Read More

Fariad v Intact Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC 6965. By: Weston McArthur (Student-at-Law) Reading Time: 3 Minutes Masood Fairad (the Appellant) was an Uber driver in Toronto, ON. On June 10, 2018, The Appellant was out working. A group of passengers called the Appellant’s Uber over to pick them up. After he picked them up and...Read More

Berkley Insurance v Aviva Insurance et al., 2021 ONSC 6596. Reading Time: 3 minutes Weston McArthur (Student-at-Law) John Doe, a practicing nurse in Ontario and member of the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO), was insured under two professional liability insurance policies, one through the Applicant (Berkley Insurance) and the other through the Respondents (Aviva...Read More

Kutlarovski v Aviva Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC 6850. Reading Time: 4 minutes Weston McArthur (Student-at-Law) Lambrini and Zoran Kutlarovski (hereinafter the “Plaintiffs”) owned a cottage which was badly damaged in a windstorm. They filed a claim with their insurer, the Aviva Insurance Company (hereinafter the “Defendant”). A dispute arose between the parties as to the...Read More