Les blogues de Miller Thomson abordent des points de droit canadien sous un angle plus informel. Découvrez les diverses perspectives de nos avocats.
Blogue : Droit des assurances
( Disponible en anglais seulement )
A foul ball to the head: No negligence established under the Occupier’s Liability Act
2 juin 2022
|
Introduction The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in Rivers v North Vancouver (District), 2021 BCCA 407, considered a negligence claim brought pursuant to the common law and British Columbia’s Occupiers Liability Act (the « Act »). In doing so, they clarified what...
( Disponible en anglais seulement )
British Columbia Court of Appeal comments on the test for want for prosecution applications
30 mars 2022
|
Introduction The Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court of Appeal”), in Drennan v Smith, 2022 BCCA 86, provided significant commentary on want for prosecution applications and warned of possible changes to come. Mr. Tyler Drennan (the “Appellant”) appealed...
( Disponible en anglais seulement )
The Supreme Court of Canada addresses promissory estoppel in the insurance context
29 novembre 2021
|
Introduction In the recent decision of Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the context of a...
( Disponible en anglais seulement )
Case Commentary: Nelson (City) v. Marchi, 2021 SCC 41 – The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the distinction between core and non-core policy decisions
26 octobre 2021
|
Introduction In the recent decision of Nelson (City) v. Marchi, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law with respect to what constitutes a “core policy decision” rendering a government or public authority immune from liability. In this particular case,...
( Disponible en anglais seulement )
Henderson v. Northbridge General Insurance Corporation, 2021 BCSC 1841: The duty to defend claims alleging intentional acts
14 octobre 2021
|
Introduction Recently, in the context of an alleged “shaken baby” claim, the Supreme Court of British Columbia considered whether an insurer had a duty to defend a claim against its insured arising from allegations framed in both negligence and assault. ...
( Disponible en anglais seulement )
British Columbia Court of Appeal clarifies indivisibility analysis
23 septembre 2021
|
Introduction The Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court of Appeal”), in Neufeldt v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2021 BCCA 327, recently provided significant commentary on the important yet difficult issue of indivisible injuries. Insurance Corporation of British...
La Cour du Québec ordonne la communication de la police d’assurance dans le cadre d’un litige
19 août 2021
|
Il y a 25 ans, l’affaire Louis Champagne radiomutuel inc.[1] établissait le droit d’une partie qui souhaite intenter un recours contre l’assureur de la partie adverse d’obtenir copie de sa police d’assurance. Un récent jugement de la Cour du Québec[2] vient...
( Disponible en anglais seulement )
Changes in “occupants” found not to be a material change in risk for the purpose of voiding a home insurance policy
25 mai 2021
|
The British Columbia Supreme Court in Dubroy v. Canadian Northern Shield Insurance Co., 2021 BCSC 352 held that a home insurance policy was not rendered void because there was no material change in risk arising from a change in occupants....
( Disponible en anglais seulement )
Accountability for the section 7(4) accounting report: When is it ‘reasonable and necessary’?
18 mai 2021
|
The requirement under section 7(4) of the Ontario Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule [1] for insurers to fund accounting reports on behalf of insured persons is a reasonable one. To be eligible for funding by the insurer, the reports must be:...
( Disponible en anglais seulement )
British Columbia Court of Appeal confirms a strict two-year limitation period to commence third-party claims
24 février 2021
|
Introduction The Court of Appeal in Sohal v. Lezama, 2021 BCCA 40 (“Sohal”) recently held that a court does not have the discretion to permit a third-party notice for contribution and indemnity (“contribution”) if the limitation period has expired under...
Avis de non-responsabilité
Les renseignements affichés sur ce blogue contiennent des points de droit variés fournis uniquement à des fins informatives et non commerciales. Ces renseignements ne constituent pas un avis juridique de la part de l’auteur. Nous mettons en garde les lecteurs de ne pas prendre de décision particulière sans avoir préalablement obtenu l’avis juridique d’un professionnel qualifié. Toute personne qui décide de prendre une décision en s’appuyant sur ces renseignements le fait à ses propres risques.
