CASE SUMMARY: G&P Procleaners and General Contractors Inc. (ONCA 2017)

Businesses need to be aware of the types of claims excluded under their commercial general liability insurance policy.  In G & P Procleaners and General Contractors Inc. v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company,[1] the Court of Appeal for Ontario provides a useful summary of the principles of interpreting exclusion clauses in commercial general liability insurance p...

In Saadati, the Supreme Court of Canada held that it is not necessary, in order to support a finding of legally compensable mental injury, for a claimant to adduce expert evidence or other proof of a recognized psychiatric illness.

Individuals who are unrepresented by a lawyer, either by choice or due to financial constraints, face special challenges navigating the legal system.  These litigants also present challenges to lawyers, judges, and other court officials who engage with them.  This is particularly true in family law litigation, where an increasing number of parties appear without a lawyer.

A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal highlights the dangers in missing deadlines stipulated in Agreements of Purchase and Sale.[1]

 
The Facts

On January 10, 2014, Invecom Associates Limited (“Invecom”) entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”) with 2260693 Ontario Inc. and two other numbered companies (collectively the “Vendors”) to acquire three properties in Waterloo, Ontario.

 
Invecom had p...

Who is liable for damages caused by a dog bite or attack when the dog is being walked?

Under the Dog Owner’s Liability Act[1] (the “Act” or the “DOLA”), the owner of a dog is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the dog on another person or domestic animal. However, DOLA defines “owner” as including “a person who possesses or harbours the dog and, where the owner is a minor, the person responsible for the custo...

In Carter v. Intact Insurance Co.,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with a dispute between the insured and the insurance company on whether the insured was entitled, under the insurance policy, to the cost of replacing their damaged property with one that was not of like kind and quality.