We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 67

Supreme Court clarifies the test for use and operation of motor vehicles in the third party context

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • October 19 2007

In two unanimous decisions released October 19, 2007, the Supreme Court has reversed the majority position of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Herbison and Vytlingam and concluded that the use of the words “directly or indirectly” in section 239 (1) of the Insurance Act and the Family Protection Endorsement OPCF 44R does not eliminate the requirement of an unbroken chain of causation

Supreme Court of Canada affirms vicarious liability of leasing companies in motor vehicle accidents involving leased vehicle with option to purchase

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • November 16 2007

The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that under British Columbia law finance companies may be vicariously liable for motor vehicle accidents when they finance a consumer’s acquisition of a motor vehicle through a “lease with an option to purchase” instead of a “contract of conditional sale”

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • January 30 2009

On November 21, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada found in favour of Canadian National Railway Company (CNR), allowing CNR’s appeal, and set aside the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal, restoring the trial judgment in CNR’s favour, including interest and costs, of approximately $40 million

After previous attempts failed, British Columbia is clearly now the latest health care cost recovery jurisdiction

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • February 20 2009

The common law of damages in British Columbia is, generally speaking, that a plaintiff injured by the wrongful conduct of a negligent party can only recover for his or her actual loss

US insurers have no PE in Canada

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada, USA
  • -
  • June 19 2008

On May 16, 2008, the Tax Court of Canada released its judgments in American Income Life Insurance Company v. The Queen and Knights of Columbus v. The Queen

Defence costs allocation

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • April 28 2009

The October 8, 2008 Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Hanis v. Teevan definitively sets out and clarifies the principles that now apply in Ontario to the issue of defence costs allocation for covered and uncovered claims

Municipal liability alert

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • April 28 2009

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released its decision in Cartner v. Burlington (City) (August, 2008), an interesting case about a slip and fall on a sidewalk that took place in the unusual absence of ice

Spoliation: the consequences of lost or destroyed evidence

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • April 28 2009

The recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in McDougall v. Black & Decker Canada Inc. (2008), explored the issue of lost or destroyed evidence and whether an action can or should be struck prior to trial, on the basis of spoliation

Revenue Minister can't use audit to "chill" business

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • March 13 2013

In MNR v. RBC Life Insurance Company et al., 2013 FCA 50, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the Minister of National Revenue could not use her

Ontario limitations update: transitioning claims for contribution and indemnity

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • September 9 2009

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Placzek v. Green (January 2009) interpreted for the first time the transition provisions under Ontario’s new Limitations Act as they relate to claims for contribution and indemnity