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 86

BCCA upholds finding that homeowner’s policy excludes coverage for claims arising from bodily injury to any person residing in insured’s household
  • Harper Grey LLP
  • Canada
  • December 12 2017

A homeowner’s policy was found to exclude coverage for liability arising from a third party notice issued against an insured where the underlying


BCCA denies claim where teenaged plaintiff “ought to have known” that vehicle was driven without consent
  • Harper Grey LLP
  • Canada
  • October 10 2017

The phrase “knew or ought to have known” under s. 91 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231 imports a purely objective standard. A


Blaneys Ontario Court of Appeal Summaries
  • Blaney McMurtry LLP
  • Canada
  • September 22 2017

The Court released two companion decisions (El-Khodr v. Lackie and Cobb v. Long Estate) relating to the deductibility of collateral benefits, namely


Saadati v. Moorhead: SCC clarifies law on required proof of mental injury
  • Gowling WLG
  • Canada
  • June 13 2017

A unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Saadati v. Moorhead1 released on June 2, 2017, clarified the law on the requirements for proof of mental


Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required
  • Stewart McKelvey
  • Canada
  • June 12 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish


In BC no-fault Part 7 benefits are distinct from compensation awarded on the basis of fault or liability in tort
  • Harper Grey LLP
  • Canada
  • January 10 2017

Part 7 benefits under the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act and its Regulations are not compensation from a person whose acts have caused or are alleged


BC court affirms the insurer’s obligation to save harmless the insured from the costs of defending the action encompasses third-party proceedings
  • Harper Grey LLP
  • Canada
  • December 13 2016

Where the insurer denies coverage and the insured is forced to bring third party proceedings to enforce the insurer’s obligations under the policy


MacPherson v. White
  • Harper Grey LLP
  • Canada
  • August 23 2016

A plaintiff's insurer may be added as a party to a tort action where the tortfeasor's insurance limits will likely be insufficient, and the plaintiff


I get high with a little help from my friends
  • Gowling WLG
  • Canada
  • August 8 2016

It was inevitable that B.C. would be a leader in this area. In Hollyer v. Gaston 2016 BCSC 1401, a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court rendered July 27


Andraws v. Anslow: Reasons for Judgment Must be Adequate to Facilitate Proper Appellate Review
  • Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
  • Canada
  • July 14 2016

The British Columbia Court of Appeal in Andraws v. Anslow found that a trial judge’s reasons for judgment were inadequate, as they did not allow for