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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 1,704

Kozel v The Personal Insurance Co.: the latest word on relief from forfeiture
  • Blaney McMurtry LLP
  • Canada
  • March 3 2014

On February 19, 2014, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Kozel v The Personal Insurance Company, 2014 ONCA 130. The case will be of


What to expect when you’re expecting an answer from a regulator: SCC to discuss the reasonable diligence defense in cases or strict liability offenses
  • McCarthy Tétrault LLP
  • Canada
  • August 31 2012

The Supreme Court of Canada recently granted leave to appeal in a case involving the Autorités des marchés financiers (“AMF”), the Quebec regulator regarding financial products and services


Court rules insurer waived right to deny coverage
  • McLennan Ross LLP
  • Canada
  • March 14 2012

In The Personal Insurance Company v. Richinger, 2012 NWTSC 19, the Supreme Court recently held that an insurer that defended its insured for three years before denying coverage was not entitled to rely on an otherwise applicable exclusion to deny coverage


ONCA rules on regular use
  • Miller Thomson LLP
  • Canada
  • October 11 2012

The Court of Appeal has just released its decision in Kingsway v. Gore and Security National v. Markel dealing with regular use issues


Summary of Pender vs. Squires, 2013 NLCA 37
  • Stewart McKelvey
  • Canada
  • September 10 2013

This appeal arose from a decision which held that the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company ("Dominion") has a duty to defend Larry and Lona


Kusnierz v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company (Ontario Court of Appeal decision released on December 23, 2011)
  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Canada
  • January 4 2012

On December 23, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal brought clarity to the long debated issue of how catastrophic impairments should be determined for seriously injured individuals whose injuries do not fall under one of the six “specific” categories under subsection 2(1.1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule Accidents on or after November 1, 1996 3 (“SABS”


Orpin v. Littlechild: will revokes insurance policy beneficiary designation
  • Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
  • Canada
  • January 13 2012

The cases of Richardson Estate v. Mew and Tower Estate v. Tower Estate considered whether a provision in a separation agreement can revoke a prior beneficiary designation


Dube v. BCAA Insurance Corp.
  • Harper Grey LLP
  • Canada
  • February 20 2013

Insurer was not under a duty to defend an insured in an action where the insured, a teacher, was alleged to have committed assault and battery in


Lauzon v. Axa Insurance (Canada)
  • Harper Grey LLP
  • Canada
  • February 20 2013

The insurer ("Axa") was successful in obtaining an order compelling the insured, Lauzon (the "plaintiff"), to attend either at an examination under


Death by firewall
  • Miller Thomson LLP
  • Canada
  • March 1 2013

A recent Superior Court decision highlights the ongoing struggle automobile insurers face with privacy issues and firewalls. In De Sousa v. Aviva