Canada: Court Procedure

The British Columbia Court of Appeal examines how courts should assess negative contingency deductions when plaintiffs have pre-existing health conditions, establishing critical evidentiary standards for reducing damages based on psychological vulnerability. This decision clarifies the burden defendants must meet to justify substantial reductions in personal injury awards and distinguishes between proving a contingency exists versus quantifying its likelihood.

It often comes as a shock at an already stressful time: your minor child (under the age of 18) is entitled to money, perhaps through an inheritance or a personal injury settlement, but you are told you cannot access...

When most people think of injuries resulting from accidents or negligence, they imagine visible harm -broken bones, lacerations, or other physical trauma. However, many injuries are far less visible, yet equally devastating.

Canadian courts are increasingly confronted with parallel class actions across multiple provinces, particularly in life sciences litigation involving the same drug or device.

After a motorcycle collision, drivers frequently claim they never saw the motorcyclist, but this statement carries significant legal implications. This article examines the leading factors behind motorcycle accidents, from visibility challenges and blind spots to driver awareness issues, and explores why the resulting legal claims are rarely as straightforward as they appear.

What happens when a party claims it misunderstood the legal consequences of a contract, but had in fact obtained legal advice at the time it was executed? The short answer is that it can result in a complete loss...

The Supreme Court of Canada's landmark decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia establishes a new tort of intimate partner violence, fundamentally reshaping how Canadian law addresses coercive control in relationships. This ruling moves beyond traditional incident-based torts to recognize the cumulative harm caused by patterns of abuse that erode autonomy and dignity.

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Rabinowitz v. 2528061 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONCA 21 (Rabinowitz), revisits the application of section 8 of the Interest Act (the “Act”)...

The Federal Court has applied a flexible approach for admitting new evidence in trademark appeals, allowing a registrant to introduce evidence of use that was not initially filed due to employee inadvertence.