Skip to main content

RP Blog

Communicating with Treating Healthcare Practitioners

Defence counsel are not permitted to communicate with a plaintiff’s treating healthcare practitioners, without the plaintiff’s consent. This includes preparing a treating healthcare practitioner for trial. In Roy v. Primmum Insurance Company, 2019 ONSC 6361, which involved an accident benefits trial, the court considered whether defence counsel could prepare the plaintiffs’Read More

Rogers Partners Welcomes Mo Rajabali

Rogers Partners is pleased to welcome Modasir “Mo” Rajabali to the firm as an associate lawyer. Mo started with us today. Mo achieved his law degree from the University of Windsor in 2018 and was called to the Bar earlier this year. Prior to law school, Mo majored in PoliticalRead More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

Two of our articling students, Ankita Abraham and Micah Pirk O’Connell, provided helpful information at our muffin meeting this morning. Changes to Small Claims Court and Simplified Procedure Actions Ankita Abraham noted that the monetary jurisdiction of Small Claims Court actions will be increasing from $25,000 to $35,000, effective JanuaryRead More

David Rogers Presenting at Osgoode Personal Injury Conference

David M. Rogers
David Rogers will be presenting tomorrow at Osgoode’s 15th annual Personal Injury Law & Practice conference. David’s topic is “Will Failure To Admit Liability In a Timely Fashion Give Rise to Punitive Damages? The Law After McCabe”. David will be discussing vicarious liability and whether punitive damages can be awardedRead More

Does Hryniak Apply to the Wealthy?

By Brian Sunohara Does the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hryniak apply to litigants with “deep pockets”? Should defendants with insurance be allowed to bring summary judgment motions? Is summary judgment available to plaintiffs who have contingency fee arrangements with their lawyers and legal cost protection? These are someRead More

Defendant Liable for Plaintiff Jumping Out of Bus

By Brian Sunohara In Little v. Floyd Sinton Limited, 2019 ONCA 865, the plaintiff was largely successful in an appeal involving an incident where the plaintiff jumped out of the back of a moving school bus. Background At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was 13 years old andRead More

Limitation Period for Duty to Defend Applications

It is often thought that the limitation period to commence a duty to defend application is two years from an insurer’s refusal to defend. For example, in Zochowski v. Security National Insurance, 2015 ONSC 7881, Justice Belobaba stated that “[t]he law is clear that a clear and unequivocal denial of coverage triggersRead More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

Two of our articling students presented very interesting insurance cases this morning at our muffin meeting. $500,000 Ring Stolen on a Beach Micah Pirk O’Connell addressed a case involving an insurance claim for a stolen ring. In Demetriou v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, 2019 ONCA 855, the plaintiff wasRead More

Dash Cam Video Proves Defendant Right

The court’s decision in Dainov v. Lee, 2019 ONSC 5993, shows the value of dash cam footage in determining liability for an accident. Based on a dash cam video, Justice Koehnen was satisfied that the defendant driver was not liable for a motor vehicle accident. The video showed that theRead More

“Automobiles” and Foreign Accidents in the SABS Context

In Benson v. Belair Insurance Company Inc., 2019 ONCA 840, the Court of Appeal examined whether two Ontario insurers had to provide statutory accident benefits (“SABS”) in regards to accidents that occurred outside of Ontario involving an ATV and a dirt bike. One accident occurred in British Columbia. The claimantRead More

A Primer on WSIAT Right to Sue Applications

An article by Jocelyn Brogan has been published.[1]  The article, entitled “Giving consideration to plaintiffs’ right to sue”, examines the main issues that arise in right to sue applications at the Workplace Safety Insurance and Appeals Tribunal. [1] The article was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily (www.thelawyersdaily.ca), part ofRead More

New Court of Appeal Decision on PJI Rate

By Brian Sunohara For many years, the default prejudgment interest (“PJI”) rate in Ontario for non-pecuniary damages in personal injury cases was 5%. When this rate was introduced, market interest rates were actually much higher than 5%. In auto cases, the default 5% PJI rate changed in 2015 to accountRead More

Rogers Partners 25th Anniversary Celebration

Rogers Partners LLP celebrated its 25th anniversary last night with many special guests at the Royal York! It was a terrific evening. We’re grateful to everyone who has played a part with our firm over these past 25 years!Read More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

At our weekly meeting, we discussed a decision addressing the statutory threshold in motor vehicle accident claims. In MacFarlane v. Razmerita, 2019 ONSC 6160, the jury did not award the plaintiff any damages whatsoever. Previous case law considered whether a trial judge has to make a determination on the thresholdRead More

New Small Claims Court Limit

The Ontario government has announced that, effective January 1, 2020, the monetary limit of the Small Claims Court will increase from $25,000 to $35,000. The government believes that wait times in the Superior Court of Justice will be reduced, as many civil cases that would have started in Superior CourtRead More

Test for Negligent Misrepresentation

In Doumouras v. Chander, 2019 ONSC 6056, the court outlined the five requirements for a claim for negligent misrepresentation: there must be a duty of care based on a “special relationship” between the representor and the representee; the representation in question must be untrue, inaccurate, or misleading; the representor mustRead More

Class Members Cannot Appeal Settlements

In Bancroft-Snell v. Visa Canada Corporation, 2019 ONCA 822, a five-member panel of the Court of Appeal confirmed that an individual member of a class action does not have the right to challenge settlement approval orders by way of appeal. The Court of Appeal stated that class members who doRead More

Credibility vs. Reliability

By Brian Sunohara In Paddy-Cannon et al v. Attorney General of Canada et al, 2019 ONSC 5665, the court went over the differences between credibility and reliability. A credible witness may not be a reliable witness. Credibility has to do with a witness’s veracity. Reliability has to do with theRead More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

At our weekly firm meeting, Ankita Abraham discussed a decision in which a psychologist was not qualified as an expert witness because he lacked independence and objectivity. In Barker v. Barker, 2019 ONSC 5906, the plaintiffs sued a mental health centre. They alleged that they were experimented on and harmed byRead More

Successful WSIAT Hearing

Brian Sunohara and Colleen Mackeigan were recently successful in a hearing before the Workplace Safety Insurance and Appeals Tribunal (Decision No. 1709/19). The claim arose out of an accident involving a car and a truck. Both drivers were working at the time of the accident. Our clients argued that the plaintiff’sRead More

Mental Health and Insurance Premiums

Tom Macmillan has written a thought-provoking article entitled “Differentiation allowed to determine risk in insurance”.[1] One of our articling students, Matthew Umbrio, provided helpful research. The article explores whether insurers should be allowed to charge different life insurance premiums to people with mental health issues. [1] The article was originallyRead More

Delay: Jordan’s Big Effect on Civil Litigation

An article written by Brian Sunohara called “Delay: Jordan’s big effect on civil litigation” has recently been published.[1] The article addresses a case recently heard by the Supreme Court of Canada that may cause further delay to civil litigants. [1] The article was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily (www.thelawyersdaily.ca),Read More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

At this morning’s muffin meeting, Micah Pirk O’Connell discussed a Court of Appeal decision involving underinsured coverage for an automobile accident. In Murphy v. Savoie, 2019 ONCA 784, Aviva provided automobile insurance to Emblem Flowers. The policy included an OPCF 44R endorsement. Emblem Flowers employed Colm Hogan as a delivery vanRead More

Drainage Dispute Between Neighbours

“It is very unfortunate that these neighbours could not have found someway to work this out. Sadly, both sides have incurred significant legal costs and an even more significant amount of stress”. Those were the comments of Justice J.E. Ferguson in a dispute between neighbours in Dawes v. Gill, 2019 ONSCRead More

Lost Oil Tank: Action Dismissed

Brian Sunohara of our firm has handled numerous product liability and environmental claims involving leaks from oil tanks. In some of these cases, the oil tank went missing before it could be fully inspected by experts. Plaintiffs will sometimes argue that the cause of the leak can still be determinedRead More

The $800,000 Question: No Waiver By Insurer

By Brian Sunohara In Bradfield v. Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2019 ONCA 800, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge that an insurer waived its right to rely on a policy breach for not conducting thorough and timely investigations. The matter arose out of aRead More

Test for Binding Settlements

In Lumsden et al v. The Toronto Police Services Board et al, 2019 ONSC 5052, the court addressed the essential features of a binding settlement: There has to be a mutual intention to create a legally binding contract. The parties must reach an agreement on all the essential terms ofRead More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

At this morning’s muffin meeting, Micah Pirk O’Connell discussed the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in 1472292 Ontario Inc. (Rosen Express) v. Northbridge General Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 753. This was an appeal of a judgment following an application by Rosen Express as against its insurer, Northbridge, for various declaratoryRead More

From the Desk of Alon Barda

Promoting Efficiency in Litigation In my personal life, I am probably best known for having four kids under the age of eight years old. In my legal life, I am certainly best known for being involved as counsel for one of the defendants in a trial (or as it hasRead More

No Underinsured Coverage for Truck Driver

By Brian Sunohara In Kahlon v. ACE INA Insurance, 2019 ONCA 774, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a commercial truck driver was not entitled to underinsured coverage from either his personal automobile insurer or a fleet insurer. Overview The plaintiff, Kahlon, was involved in a serious accident inRead More

Third Party Claims and Attornment

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Lilydale Cooperative Limited v. Meyn Canada Inc., 2019 ONCA 761, describes what a defendant should do if it has a viable third party claim for contribution and indemnity, but wants to challenge whether Ontario is the appropriate forum for the main action. When facedRead More

Demonstrative Aids in Opening Addresses

In Robichaud et al v. Constantinidis et al., 2019 ONSC 5396, there was a dispute over whether plaintiffs’ counsel could make use of demonstrative aids in an opening address to the jury. The particular items in question were photographs showing the plaintiff, her son, and her dog, as well asRead More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

At our muffin meeting this morning, Ankita Abraham discussed a decision in which the Court of Appeal emphasized the requirement for plaintiffs to exercise reasonable diligence in identifying potential defendants. In Rumsam v. Pakes, 2019 ONCA 748, the plaintiff had a wrist injury.  She sued a doctor and a clinicRead More

No Cap on General Damages in Sexual Abuse Claim

In D.S. v. Quesnell, 2019 ONSC 3230, the plaintiff was sexually abused by his step-father between the ages of five and ten. The step-father was criminally convicted of assault, sexual assault, and sexual interference. In a civil action, the plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against his step-father. Medical evidenceRead More

Cracking Down on Delay

The decision in Sokoloff v. Bateriwala, 2019 ONSC 5442, is another example of the courts cracking down on delay in litigation. The lawsuit in question was commenced in April 2013. It was dismissed for delay by the registrar in April 2018. The plaintiffs sought to set aside the dismissal. This request wasRead More

Is a Psychologist a Physician?

In Rodrigues v. Purtill, 2019 ONCA 740, one of the issues was whether a psychologist is a “physician” for the purpose of proving that the plaintiff meets the statutory threshold in motor vehicle accident claims. In order to meet the threshold of a permanent serious impairment, the applicable regulation requiresRead More

In|Sight – Fall 2019 Newsletter

We’re pleased to present our Fall 2019 Newsletter. We hope you find the following articles to be of interest: Taking Away the Plaintiff’s Right to Sue; Monitoring Commercial Drivers; Endean St. Joseph’s Hospital (ONCA): A Contextual Approach to Partial Settlement Agreements; Life Insurance and Mental Health; Discovery Rights at SmallRead More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

At our muffin meeting this morning, Ankita Abraham discussed an appeal of a Master’s order dismissing a summary judgment motion. The case of Gates v. Gates, 2019 ONSC 5416, arose out of a motor vehicle accident. The defendant argued that the plaintiff missed the limitation period. The Master dismissed the motion,Read More

Test for New Venue

The test for transferring an action to a different jurisdiction was considered in Shokar v. Windsor Casino Limited, 2019 ONSC 5242. The plaintiff commenced a lawsuit in Brampton arising from money that he lost gambling at Caesars Windsor. He lost $342,000 over three days. The plaintiff lived in Mississauga atRead More

Denial of Natural Justice Leads to New LAT Hearing

In a reconsideration decision at the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the claimant successfully argued that a new hearing should be ordered due to a denial of nature justice. In S.A. v. Guarantee Insurance, 2019 CanLII 77002, a combined written and oral hearing was conducted on consent. The matter dealt with entitlementRead More

Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal for Delay

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Erland v. Ontario, 2019 ONCA 689, shows that the five year deadline to set civil actions down for trial must be taken seriously. A plaintiff who seeks to extend the deadline and prevent an action from being dismissed for delay has the burden ofRead More

SABS Bad Faith Decision Good For Insurers

Kevin Adams was recently quoted in a Law Times article called “Court of Appeal affirms supremacy of Licence Appeal Tribunal”. The article addresses the Court of Appeal’s decision in Stegenga v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 615. The Court of Appeal held that statutory accident benefits claimants cannot sue inRead More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

At this morning’s muffin meeting, Matthew Umbrio discussed a case in which the plaintiffs attempted to back out of a settlement. In Huma et al v. Mississauga Hospital and Queensway Health Centre, 2019 ONSC 5115, the plaintiffs commenced a medical negligence lawsuit. A lawyer assisted with drafting the Statement ofRead More

Four Issues From Recent Jury Trial

Brian Sunohara has written an article called “Four Issues From Recent Jury Trial“.  The article summarizes a court decision which examined the following issues: Addressing Unfairness From Partial Settlement Agreements Jury Questions Demonstrative Aids In Opening Addresses Experts’ PowerPoint SlidesRead More

Who is a “Lessee”?

Section 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act outlines the order in which motor vehicle liability policies have to respond to accidents involving rented and leased vehicles. The order is: lessee, driver, and owner. In Aviva Insurance Company v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 704, the Court of Appeal examined who isRead More

Collision Damage Waiver for Rental Vehicle Invalidated

In Enterprise Rent-A-Car v. Richards, 2019 ONSC 5201, the defendant rented a minivan and purchased an optional Collision Damage Waiver. The vehicle was involved in an accident. The defendant’s son was driving the vehicle with the defendant as a passenger. The son was not an authorized driver under the rental agreement andRead More

Appeal Route for Dismissed Claim When Damages Not Assessed

Section 19(1.2)(d) of the Courts of Justice Act gives the Divisional Court jurisdiction over appeals where: the trial court has dismissed a claim in which the plaintiff had not claimed more than $50,000 exclusive of costs, or the trial court has dismissed a claim and, if the claim had been allowed,Read More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

At our muffin meeting, we discussed a decision released by the Court of Appeal this week which addressed liability for an oil leak and the test for causation. In Donleavy v. Ultramar Ltd., 2019 ONCA 687, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s apportionment of liability of 40% onRead More

Condo Owner Loses Unit Due to Unruly Tenant

There are risks with renting out condominium units. The case of York Condominium No. 187 v. Sandhu, 2019 ONSC 4779, demonstrates an extreme risk. Sandhu owned a condominium unit. She leased it to a tenant. The tenant was in constant conflict with building management and ultimately sued the condominium corporation (“YCC”) forRead More

Issue Estoppel vs. Abuse of Process

In Peter B. Cozzi Professional Corporation v. Szot, 2019 ONSC 5071, the court went over the differences between the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process. The purpose of both doctrines is to promote finality to litigation. Duplicative litigation, potential inconsistent results, undue costs, and inconclusive proceedings are toRead More

Three Rogers Partners Lawyers Named in The Best Lawyers

Rogers Partners LLP would like to congratulate the following lawyers named to the 2020 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada: Stephen Ross – Personal Injury Litigation, Insurance Law Kevin Adams – Insurance Law Anita Varjacic – Personal Injury LitigationRead More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

At this morning’s muffin meeting, Micah Pirk-O’Connell discussed an interesting decision on whether an additional insured is entitled to appoint counsel of its own choosing at the insurer’s expense. In Markham (City) v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, 2019 ONSC 4977, the plaintiff was struck by a hockey puck whileRead More

Mistaken Settlement Not Set Aside

If a party makes a mistake in entering into a settlement agreement, it is difficult to set the settlement aside. In Kearns v. Canadian Tire Corporation Limited, 2019 ONSC 4946, a settlement was reached at a mediation in a wrongful dismissal claim. Following the mediation, the defendant realized that a paymentRead More

Insurer Estopped From Denying Coverage

The Court of Appeal’s decision in The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group v. Campbell, 2019 ONCA 668, demonstrates that, if an insurer wants to dispute coverage, it must do so in a timely manner or at least notify its insured of a potential coverage issue. Campbell was involved in an accidentRead More

Negligent Parenting Not Covered Under Auto Policy

In Hunt v. Peel Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 656, the Court of Appeal upheld a decision which addressed whether an automobile insurer had to defend a father for negligent parenting. A daughter sued her father arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The daughter alleged that her father wasRead More

No Duty of Care Owed By Doctors to Family Member

Does a doctor owe a duty of care to a family member of a patient? That was one of several questions in the case of Wawrzyniak v. Livingstone, 2019 ONSC 4900. The plaintiff’s father was elderly and was suffering from several illnesses, including gangrene in his legs. Following knee amputation surgery,Read More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

At our muffin meeting this morning, Matthew Umbrio discussed an interesting Small Claims Court decision in St. Lawrence Testing & Inspection Co. Ltd. v Lanark Leeds Distribution Ltd., 2019 CanLII 69697 (ON SCSM). The defendants brought a motion for judgment confirming that the terms of settlement had been satisfied. ThisRead More

The New Crown Liability and Proceedings Act

The Proceedings Against the Crown Act was repealed on July 1, 2019. It has been replaced with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 (“CLPA”). Under section 11 of CLPA, claims are not permitted against the Crown in respect of legislative, policy, and regulatory decisions. Section 17 of CLPA requiresRead More

Priority Dispute for Out-of-Province Claimant

In Intact v. Gore, 2019 ONSC 4508, the court overturned a decision of an arbitrator regarding a dispute between insurers over the responsibility to pay statutory accident benefits to a claimant who was injured in an out-of-province accident. The claimant was a passenger in a single vehicle accident in Alberta. HisRead More

Counsel’s Role in Preventing Humiliated Experts

Brian Sunohara has written an article called “Counsel’s Role in Preventing Humiliated Experts“. Brian discusses a recent court decision involving an expert who was testifying for the first time. The trial judge found the expert to be biased and unfamiliar with his role as an expert witness. Justice Tzimas emphasizedRead More

No Interim SABS

In T.K. v. Allstate Insurance, 2019 ONLAT 18-007113/AABS, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) confirmed that it does not have jurisdiction to award interim statutory accident benefits, unlike the previous FSCO regime. This is consistent with a prior decision of the LAT. The adjudicator agreed with the insured that the Tribunal’sRead More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

Our articling students did a great job this morning at our muffin meeting! Ankita Abraham addressed the decision in Maria-Antony v. Ivaschenko, 2019 ONSC 4731. The defendants brought a motion for leave to conduct a second psychiatric assessment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff attended a defence psychiatry assessment in 2015. TheRead More

Common Issues in the Automobile Litigation Process – A Primer for Insurance Professionals

Stephen Ross, Tom Macmillan, and Erin Crochetière have prepared a handy resource called “Common Issues in the Automobile Litigation Process – A Primer for Insurance Professionals“. The slides provide a high level, basic overview of defending automobile claims, in particular: Jurisdictional Issues Pleadings Liability Damages Collateral Benefits Prejudgment Interest CostsRead More

The Use of Surveillance at Trial – Abridged Article

We have written an abridged version of our recent article, “The Use of Surveillance at Trial“. In the article, Stephen Ross, Brian Sunohara, and Meryl Rodrigues say that a recent Court of Appeal decision will make it less onerous for defendants to rely on surveillance at trial. The Court of AppealRead More

Damages for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

In Noiles v. MTD Products Inc., 2019 ONSC 4642, the plaintiff was putting air into a tire of a snow thrower when the tire rim exploded. He was 39 years old at the time. Pieces of the fractured rim and tire struck the plaintiff’s right shin. He sustained bruising andRead More

Successful Motion for Further Discovery

In Leendertse v. OPP, 2019 ONSC 4661, the court granted a further discovery of the plaintiff one month prior to trial. The plaintiff provided information and documentation following his initial discovery that suggested a change in his work status. Justice S.K. Campbell stated that, to avoid the defendants being unpreparedRead More

Amendments to Rules on Lawyers’ Removal From Record

Due to amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure which came into effect on January 1, 2019, motions by lawyers to be removed from the record must be made on notice to all parties. Previously, lawyers only had to provide notice to their own clients. Rule 15.04(1.1) indicates that only the notice ofRead More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

Ankita Abraham discussed the court’s decision in Walker v. Canada, 2019 ONSC 4578, at this morning’s muffin meeting. The plaintiff alleged that he injured his left knee at a worksite while he was incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. The plaintiff argued that the federal government was negligent in the maintenanceRead More

Scale of Costs Thrown Away

Costs thrown away are the payment of a party’s costs for wasted preparation for a trial or other hearing, such as when there is an adjournment or a mistrial. Counsel often assume that costs thrown away are fixed on a partial indemnity scale, and the courts often award costs thrownRead More

Timing of Motions to Strike Affidavit Evidence

Affidavits in support of motions and applications are not permitted to contain legal argument and opinions (except in rare cases where a legal opinion may be relevant to the hearing, such as proving foreign law), nor can they contain comments on the legal position of the opposite party. Rule 4.06(2)Read More

SABS Claim Barred Due to Failure to Comply With Production Requests

A recent decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal shows that, if insureds do not comply with insurers’ production requests in a timely manner, they may be barred from receiving statutory accident benefits. In I.A. v. TTC Insurance Company Limited, 2019 ONLAT 18-004128/AABS, attendant care benefits and non-earner benefits were in dispute. The insurerRead More

Fridays With Rogers Partners

This morning at our muffin meeting, Brian Sunohara led a group discussion on the impact of the Court of Appeal‘s decision in Nemchin v. Green, 2019 ONCA 634, which was released earlier this week. Our firm represented the appellant on the appeal. We have written a detailed article containing aRead More

Claims Against Educational Institutions

The Supreme Court of Canada recently dismissed an application for leave to appeal in the case of Lam v. University of Western Ontario. The plaintiff was a Ph.D. student in biochemistry at the University of Western Ontario. His academic supervisor unexpectedly died. The plaintiff was then supervised by a supervisory committee. TheRead More

The Use of Surveillance at Trial

The Court of Appeal released a decision today in Nemchin v. Green, 2019 ONCA 634.  The decision deals with a dispute over the exclusion of surveillance evidence and Facebook posts at trial. Stephen Ross, Brian Sunohara, and Meryl Rodrigues were counsel on appeal for the appellant. The Court of Appeal held that theRead More

Non-Responsive Plaintiff’s Case Dismissed

Meryl Rodrigues was successful in a motion to dismiss an action today. Meryl made repeated attempts to move the action forward, without any response from plaintiff’s counsel. As a result of the lack of response, Meryl unilaterally scheduled a discovery of the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to attend the discoveryRead More