Canada Case Law

The Owners, Strata Plan EPS1544 v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada and in French, Royal & Sun Alliance du Canada, Societe D'Assurances

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Receivership Funds Agreement did not substantially alter the landscape of the Condominium Action because its salient terms (receivership, insurer subrogation and cooperation obligations, and the insurer's undertaking to complete certain remedial work potentially using receiver funds) were already disclosed in the pleadings and correspondence; therefore immediate disclosure was not required and LHR's application for a stay or dismissal as an abuse of process was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Subrogation
• Breach of warranty
• Abuse of process
• Disclosure of settlement agreements
• Receivership funds distribution
• Negligence

Read case analysis

Canada (Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund) v. Charlotte A. Finn (Ship)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court granted default judgment for the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund against Daniel Francis MacNeil, awarding $1,680,793.74 plus ongoing statutory interest.

• Default judgment
• Owner liability for oil pollution
• Subrogation
• Statutory interest
• In rem jurisdiction
• Sister-ship arrest

Read case analysis

Canada v. Fouillard

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court granted summary judgment for Canada in a subrogated debt claim under the AMPA, finding the action timely and the defence unsupported.

• Subrogation
• Limitation period
• Summary judgment
• Interest calculation
• Costs
• Summary-judgment

Read case analysis

Simms v. Alzawad

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over WorkSafeBC payments, holding only statutory “health care” amounts must be included in damages, while vocational rehabilitation remained subject to common-law proof.

• Worksafebc payments
• Definition of health care under wca
• Vocational rehabilitation
• Special damages
• Assessment of necessity and reasonableness
• Workers-compensation

Read case analysis

Blair v MacGillivray Law Office

Court

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

Adjudicator found the claimant reasonably relied on a 25% fee representation and that a 25% contingency on the portion of the settlement attributable to the claimant after insurer subrogation ($450,000) is reasonable; accordingly legal fees were assessed at 25% of $450,000 = $112,500; interest on disbursements was not proven reasonable and is disallowed; mail/faxes disallowed; photocopy charges reduced to $445.20; defendants must provide a final statement of account and reimburse the claimant for any amounts paid in excess of these findings (including $9,222.36 for interest on disbursements a…

Source excerpt

• Contingency fee
• Reasonableness of legal fees
• Disbursements and interest
• Client accounting
• Subrogation
• Conflict of interest

Read case analysis

Rodriguez-Vergara v. Lamoureux

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The OPCF 44R endorsement is excess to motor vehicle liability insurance only and therefore, after the at-fault vehicle's $300,000 third-party liability limit is paid, the OPCF 44R (RSA) stands in priority before the defendant's PLUP; the OPCF 44R insurer may not deduct PLUP amounts from its payment nor pursue a third-party claim against the at-fault insurer Certas or subrogate against Certas to recover OPCF 44R payouts; appeal dismissed and motion judge's priority ruling and related orders upheld.

Source excerpt

• Underinsured motorist coverage
• Priority of insurance coverages
• Family protection endorsement opcf 44r
• Personal umbrella liability policy (plup)
• Subrogation
• Third-party claims

Read case analysis

Workers’ Compensation Board v. Ramsay

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed WCB’s subrogated battery claim against Phillip Gilmore Ramsay, finding the plaintiff failed to prove liability.

• Battery
• Subrogation
• Consent
• Self-defence
• Intoxication/automatism
• Adverse inference

Read case analysis

Anderson v. Gagne

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court accepted the neurologist's expert opinion, supported by contemporaneous medical records and lay evidence, that the plaintiff sustained a mild traumatic brain injury/post-concussion syndrome caused by the March 29, 2014 accident (exacerbated by the October 14, 2014 accident) and awarded non-pecuniary damages for that injury; the court rejected the diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome because key components (left shoulder and left-sided neck pain) were not shown to be causally linked to the first accident on the balance of probabilities; the right knee injury qualified under the Minor I…

Source excerpt

• Mild traumatic brain injury
• Post-concussion syndrome
• Chronic pain
• Minor injury cap
• General damages
• Loss of earning capacity

Read case analysis

Aujla v. 0775740 B.C. Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court addressed a failed Royal Bay joint venture, finding the agreement was partly oral and partly written and that the parties were personally bound as co-venturers and co-obligors.

• Joint venture
• Contribution and indemnity between co-obligors
• Accounting of contributions
• Fraudulent conveyance
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Parol evidence and partly oral contracts

Read case analysis

Vigneault v. Mitchell

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Both drivers breached their duty of care by being on or slightly over the centre yellow lines at the time of collision; liability is apportioned 50/50. The plaintiff’s back and knee injuries are within the statutory definition of sprain/strain and have not been proven to constitute a 'serious impairment' outside the minor injury cap, therefore general damages are capped. Awards are made for loss of housekeeping services and future care; no award for loss of future earning capacity. Expert reconstruction evidence was given limited weight due to methodological imprecision but accepted as suppor…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Liability apportionment
• Interpretation of motor vehicle act s.123
• Minor injury cap under insurance act
• Assessment of non-pecuniary damages
• Loss of housekeeping services

Read case analysis