Layoffs and COVID 19

Alex Vigneault Student-at-Law Contact Information  (705) 722-4400 ext. 224 If you’re an employee or an employer, then in between sessions of binge watching of Tiger King, you might be pondering how the COVID-19 pandemic will affect the...

Road Access Dispute?

If you find a road that you commonly use to access your cottage blocked or you are considering blocking other motorists from using an access road which crosses your property, you should understand the effect of the Road Access Act.

Plaintiffs’ Entitlement to Surveillance Particulars Bolstered, Supplementary Affidavit of Documents Requirements Muddled

In Iannarella v. Corbett 2015 ONCA 110, released February 17, 2015, the Court of Appeal has bolstered the right of plaintiffs to obtain surveillance particulars, but in doing so it seems to have unnecessarily created a serious problem: it held that a party is obliged by a combination of rules 30.06 and 30.07(b) to provide an updated affidavit of documents listing any surveillance reports (and therefore presumably any privileged documents) created after the party’s affidavit of documents has been sworn. Lawyers may be kept busy preparing updated affidavits of documents.

Defending an Action Without an Insured? When a Claim is Served Upon the Insurer by Substituted Service, Where the Rules and Practice Should, Could or Might Lead.

The issue of plaintiff’s counsel serving their statement of claim directly upon a defendant’s insurer, by way of an order for substituted service, has been around for some time.

The leading case on the issue is Laframboise v. Woodward (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 338, 2002 CarswellOnt 1448 (Ont. S.C.J.)

It has no history. It does not have negative treatment. It has not been distinguished or overruled.

In the decision Justice Quinn decides to summarize the state of the law on the issue and make very pointed comments on the proper procedure to be followed in obtaining such an order.

Of Frozen Pipes, Windfalls and Draconian Consequences

Written by David Thompson and Roger Chown for OIAA WP Magazine

It is very common for homeowner’s policies to exclude water claims arising when pipes freeze during the heating season if the insured was away from the premises for more than four consecutive days, unless the insured had arranged for a competent person to enter the dwelling on a daily basis to ensure that heating was being maintained. However, there are surprisingly few cases that squarely deal with this simple fact pattern. After one of the coldest Canadian winters in decades, it seems appropriate to consider this topic.