Van Grinsven v Kortbeek, 2021 ABQB 


This is a Defendant’s application to dismiss a medical malpractice lawsuit. The Applicants say that the Plaintiffs will not be able to meet their burden of proof and that this claim must fail. Discusses, inter alia, res ipsa loquitur.


Condominium Corporation No 0427067 v Aviva Canada Inc, 2021 ABQB


The primary issue in this appeal is whether an alleged fraudulent concealment will intervene to extend the limitation period in this action.


In 2012, the Insurers denied the Plaintiff’s claim. In 2017, the Plaintiff realized that the Insurers assessed and denied the claim relying on the wrong insurance policy. The Plaintiff then filed a Statement of Claim in 2017 challenging the 2012 denial and seeking to have the claim assessed under the correct policy. The Insurers have declined to reconsider the claim using the correct policy wording on the basis that it is outside the limitation period. 


Mansour v Rampersad, 2021 ABQB


The case discusses, inter alia: What are the legal principles concerning consent to drive and possess a vehicle? Can consent be terminated in advance or be subject to an expiration period?

Was consent terminated here?


Subway Franchise Systems of Canada, Inc. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2021 ONCA 


When does a claim that is framed in negligence fall within the scrutiny of Ontario’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) legislation in s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (“CJA”)? When will such a claim pass the legislation’s substantial merit hurdle necessary to allow it to continue? This appeal raises those questions.


SCC Autosport v. Doyle Manufacturing Inc., 2021 ONSC


Some noteworthy discussion on the repair and storage liens act. Must Read!


Vujicic v MacEachern (Estate), 2021 ABQB


Payments made by WorkSafeBC to the injured workers must be deducted from their accident claim award. WorkSafeBC’s right of subrogation is proscribed by that mandatory deduction.


Giustra v Twitter, Inc., 2021


Which jurisdiction plays when tweets are read all over the world and someone wishes to sue twitter for defamation? The plaintiff has brought this lawsuit against Twitter claiming damages and an injunction for defamatory tweets authored by others and relayed on Twitter’s internet platform.


Stapper v. Taylor, 2021 ONSC 


Jurisdictional issues discussed in light of an MVA in US. “jurisdiction simpliciter” and “forum non conveniens” discussed as two separate issues.


Matlock v. Ottawa-Carleton Standard Condominium Corporation, 2021 ONSC


The Plaintiff attempts to differentiate between the two claims by stating that his claim against the Condominium Corporation arises from its failure to disclose deficiencies and to maintain and repair various parts of the common elements, whereas his claim against the individual directors arise from the alleged negligence in their decision making process.  Given that a corporation is an inanimate piece of legal machinery incapable of thought or action, the Court can only determine its legal liability by assessing the conduct of those who caused the company to act in the way that it did. The liability of the Condominium Corporation flows from the decision making of the individuals. 

Gammond v. Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance Company, 2021 ONSC 


Is the plaintiff subject of a collective agreement that mandates arbitration as the dispute resolution process under a disability insurance policy? The plaintiff seeks a declaration she is entitled to indemnity under a disability policy issued by Desjardins and damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and/or bad faith. Desjardins defends on the basis that, at all material times, Tanya’s terms and conditions of employment were covered by a collective agreement. As such, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter and any disputes as to her entitlement to disability benefits should be determined by an arbitrator.


Brown v. Sovereign General Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC 


In this application, the Applicant, Patrick Brown sues Sovereign General Insurance Company (“Sovereign”) for indemnification for the defence costs he incurred in defending a defamation lawsuit. Excellemt discussions on contract interpretations and who is an insured under an insurance policy.


Breen v. The Corporation of the Township of Lake of Bays, 2021 ONSC 


In 1999, plaintiffs purchased a cottage property. In 2011-2012, the plaintiffs decided to perform renovations including a significant addition to the kitchen of the Cottage. During the construction process of the addition, the plaintiffs’ designer/architect discovered several structural issues. As a result, the plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendant for negligent building inspections and breaches of the defendant’s legal duty. The court held that the defendant is responsible for damages suffered by the plaintiffs.


Howell v Strutt, 2021 BCSC


In this claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the threshold issue is the apportionment of liability for the accident among the Plaintiff, the Defendant Strutt and the RCMP. The Plaintiff says one or both Defendants are wholly responsible for the accident. The Defendants say the Plaintiff is wholly responsible. Additionally, the Plaintiff's claims under every head of damages are in dispute.


Terrigno v Butzner, 2021 ABCA


A defendant in a defamation action is not generally responsible for republication of the alleged defamation by a third party, but “can be liable for each republication of their initial publication in at least 


Allnutt v Carter, 2021 ABQB


Plaintiff commenced his action against bar/restaurant owners in negligence as an occupier. The Plaintiff was viciously attacked by another patron in the bar’s washroom. Attacker was intoxicated and his attack was unprovoked. Plaintiff seeks to hold bar responsible as a commercial host. Summary dismissal against bar.



Sunshine Village Corporation v Boehnisch, 2021 ABQB


Boehnisch worked for many years as an employee of Sunshine. Despite her desire to continue her career at Sunshine, Boehnisch was not rehired for the 2013 season. Boehnisch lodged a discrimination complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”), alleging that Sunshine had discriminated against her on the basis of age, sex, and perceived physical disability. 

Maio v. Kapp Contracting Inc., 2021 ONSC


The plaintiffs were under no obligation to sue every person on the face of the earth who might bear some responsibility for the incident. The plaintiffs selected the three parties that they selected for reasons sufficient to them.  This motion on its face is a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking a determination of the effect of a Pierringer Agreement