Here when you need us most.

An important long-term disability case out of B.C. clarifies when a disabled worker will be entitled to disability benefits and answers a number of difficult questions. In the case of Tanious v. Empire Life, 2016 BCSC 110, Justice Brown ruled that just because Ms. Tanious continued to work with her disability, does not mean that she is not entitled to long-term disability benefits. The key issue is the person’s medical condition. As Justice Brown states in his judgment, “…it is the Plaintiff’s medical condition, not whether they are working at the time, which determines to what extent the claimant is disabled.”.

Hockey is ubiquitous in Canada and sacred to many Canadians. Adult recreational leagues are in every community of every size. I have played hockey since I was five years old and only stopped a couple of years ago when I was forty-three due the time constraints of being a lawyer and having a young family. But what happens if you are injured in a recreational hockey game due to the conduct of another player, can you sue for your injuries? The short answer is yes. But the devil is in the details. Justice Sally Gomery recently reviewed the law on sporting injuries in the case of Casterton v. MacIsaac, 2020 ONSC 190 (CanLII).

Practicing medical malpractice law in Canada is fraught with risk. Interestingly, medical doctors in Canada, for the most part, are not insured in the traditional sense. Rather, they are part of the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) that acts similar to an insurer. That is, if a medical doctor is sued, the CMPA will invariably defend the medical doctor and in rare cases pay a settlement to the injured plaintiffs. If the plaintiff succeeds at trial, the CMPA pays the damages on behalf of the medical doctor. The complicated funding of the CMPA is best left to another post on its own. For now, I want to highlight how risky these cases are and the need for highly qualified and appropriate expert witnesses.

As a civil litigator it is occasionally my duty to advise potential clients that, while they may have had a viable legal claim at some point in the past, because they waited to contact a lawyer and take action, they are no longer able to bring their claim.

Note: This article originally appeared on The Lawyer's Daily on January 2nd, 2020.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in a decision released Nov. 8, 2019, that limitation periods under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) are subject to discoverability and are not to be considered “hard limitation periods.”

We all hear about ‘fake news’. The Supreme Court of Canada (the Court) has weighed in on the issue and journalists’ credibility. The recent decision, penned by Chief Justice Richard Wagner, affirmed Parliament’s recent reversal of the burden of proof for journalists ordered to reveal the identity of their confidential sources. The law has essentially shifted from a presumption of disclosure of the source to a presumption of non-disclosure. You can read the full decision here: Denis v. Côté, 2019 SCC 44.

It turns out that vehicle safety might be different for men and women. A recent CBC News article centred on research showing that women are 73% more likely than men to suffer serious or fatal injuries in car collisions. On its own, this is concerning enough, but perhaps more concerning is the reason why.

This article written by Kris Bonn originally appeared on the Lawyers Daily on Monday, July 29, 2019.

Over the past 10 years, adverse costs insurance has become more prevalent in Ontario, particularly in the field of personal injury law. For those not familiar with adverse costs insurance, it provides insurance if a party’s legal action fails and the party is ordered to pay costs to the other side of the litigation. Adverse costs insurance is commonly referred to as “after the event insurance” (ATE).

Insurance companies know how to make money. If you haven’t seen Rick Mercer’s take on insurance companies, it is a funny spoof that is starting to be the reality. Our current Ford Conservative Government has introduced a Bill to amend the Occupiers’ Liability Act that clearly puts profits over safety.