Khan v. Lee is an interesting decision of Master Joan Haberman. In this medical malpractice action, the defendant doctor had moved, under Rules 21.01 and 25.11, to strike the statement of claim. He filed no evidence on the motion. Counsel…
The debate continues as to whether family physicians may testify as experts or only as fact witnesses. In this case, the issue arose with a bit of a twist: the court opened the door for the plaintiff’s family doctor to…
In Macchi S.P.A. v. New Solution Extrusion Inc., the Court of Appeal (Justices Rosenberg, Gillese and Blair) upheld the dismissal, by Mr. Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel, of a third party claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendants’ former lawyer. (The…
Today, the Supreme Court of Canada released a much-anticipated decision in Davis & Co. v. Monarch Entertainment Corporation. The case is of particular interest to lawyers practising in the field of commercial law because it has clarified the obligations owed…
In Cassels, Brock & Blackwell v. LawPRO, the Court of Appeal ruled that a duty to defend was not owed to the plaintiff law firm by its liability insurance carrier, the Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company (“LawPRO”). The policy contained an…
The recent decision of Parker v. Chapman raises some interesting issues about the law of limitation periods in the post-Limitations Act, 2002 era. The ruling was made by Mr. Justice Barry MacDougall of the Ontario Superior Court. This was a…
The law firm of Kramer Henderson had a very good day today. It had appealed an assessment officer’s refusal to allow a $60,000 fee premium from their former client. Superior Court Justice John Belleghem allowed the firm’s appeal and found…
On Monday, the California Supreme Court ruled that “an attorney may be held liable for continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause”. We have attached a copy of the decision in Zamos v. Stroud. Not the law…