The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal from two
cases of interest to Canadian businesses, particularly
The application for leave to appeal in Malhotra v. State
Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2013 ONCA 326
concerns two orders appointing an umpire under s. 128 of the
Ontario Insurance Act. The dispute was in respect to five
properties owned by the applicant, Ms. Malhotra, and insured by the
The applicant maintained that each property required a separate
umpire be appointed but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of
the decisions appointing a single umpire for all five properties.
In its view, the power to appoint an umpire under s. 128 of the
Insurance Act is discretionary, and nothing in s. 128 prohibits a
judge from appointing a single umpire to deal with multiple
properties. The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal.
Leave to appeal was also denied in Khazali (Succession de)
c. Canadian Apartment Properties Real Estate Investment Trust
(CAPREIT), 2013 QCCA 1975. This litigation arose when a
piece of concrete from the ceiling of a parking garage fell onto a
parked vehicle, causing the driver's death. The deceased's
family sued the owner of garage. The respondent owner defended by
moving to dismiss the action on the basis that the damage suffered
was from an "accident" caused by an
"automobile" within the meaning of the Automobile
Insurance Act ("AAA") and that therefore the applicants
were precluded from suit under the more general law of civil
liability. The applicants countered that the parking garage was not
a "public highway" within the meaning of the AAA, that
the accident had occurred in a private place, that the vehicle had
been stationary and that therefore the AAA did not apply to this
case. Both lower courts dismissed the action, and the Supreme Court
of Canada denied the appeal.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).