Mediation discussions not always confidential.
On May 8, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada carved out an important exception to the promise to keep mediation discussions confidential. Companies and their insurers rely on private mediators to settle lawsuits partly because what is discussed at mediation stays confidential. This ensures that business strategy stays under wraps and public scandal for mistakes is avoided. In 2011, Bombardier and Union Carbide tried to settle a decade-long $32,000,000 court battle through mediation. In 1997, 1998 and 2003, Bombardier bought gas tanks from Union Carbide to use in Sea-Doo personal watercraft. In...
read moreIs there a duty to take cannabis?
A 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia illustrates just how far the debate has swung on the issue of marijuana as medicine. The judgment of Gelsby v. MacMillan (March 4, 2014, BC Supreme Court) was a routine personal injury case in many respects. The plaintiff, Jessica Glesby was injured in a motor vehicle accident, suffered various injuries, and went to trial on the issue of the “assessment of damages” (how much money would she receive for her injuries). The arguments raised by both parties were for the most part not out of the ordinary, with the defendant’s arguing that...
read moreDid Manulife make “deliberately false” statements?
On January 16, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected an application by Manulife Financial to dismiss the action against it in Sells v. Manulife, 2014 ONSC 715. The judgment is found at: Sells v Manulife, 2014 ONSC 715. The plaintiffs in this action are former agents of Manulife. Their essential claim for their damages against Manulife is that Manulife made very serious but false and misleading statements regarding the plaintiffs’ work and practices while with Manulife which Manulife knew or ought to have known would make it impossible for the plaintiffs to obtain new...
read moreFailure to examine plaintiff diminishes weight of expert report.
It is well established that failure of an ‘independent medical examiner’ to physically examine a patient is not, in and of itself, a reason for an expert report to be inadmissible in the BC Supreme Court. However, when a litigant relies on such a report the weight the court attaches to it is often negatively impacted. Reasons for judgement released by the BC Supreme Court on December 31, 2013, demonstrate this. In Johal v. Meyede the plaintiff was injured in a 2010 rear end collision. Fault was admitted by the defendant. The plaintiff suffered injuries which were ongoing at the time of...
read moreKnock down the house of cards.
On August 23, 2013 a judge of the Supreme Court of BC held that when opinion evidence is introduced into court the factual underpinnings upon which the opinion is based must be proven, otherwise the opinion evidence is of no value. In Paller v. Regan, 2013 BCSC 1672, the plaintiff was injured in a 2009 collision. ICBC admitted the defendant was at fault but disputed the collision caused any injuries. In support of their position they relied on an orthopaedic surgeon who never examined the plaintiff but provided an opinion that it was “unlikely” the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the...
read moreOne judge’s clarity is another’s ambiguity.
On June 4, 2013, the BC Court of Appeal reversed a trial decision in McLean v. Canadian Premier Life Insurance, 2013 BCCA 264,and in an unanimous decision allowed the appeal and held that the insured was entitled to the $1 million benefit provided by the policy. The McLean appeal decision is an interesting example of how one judge’s clarity is another’s ambiguity. The trial judge found that “the words of the contract are clear and unambiguous” and held that the loss did not come within the policy terms. Specifically, holding that at the time of the loss the deceased insured was not a...
read more
