A body check delivered to another person in the hallway or down a sidewalk would be subject to civil (and possibly criminal) liability. Different rules apply to sports as they involve willing participants engaging in consensual activity. However, there are limits, and the courts have historically been tasked with attempting to draw the line between reasonable play and negligent conduct. Cox v. Miller, 2024 BCCA 3 is a recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal which addresses that “line”. The defendant injured the plaintiff while delivering a slide tackle during a recreational soc ..read more

Canadian courts have repeatedly confirmed that an insurer’s duty to defend will be engaged if the pleadings allege facts which, if true, would require the insurer to indemnify the insured for the claim under the language of the policy. Insurers must carefully consider the policy wording when assessing the duty to defend.  Notably, clear policy language may exclude coverage even where relevant terms are defined in a manner which might otherwise offend their commonly understood legal definitions.  This was recently highlighted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Jack-O’s Sports ..read more

In insurance coverage determinations, the question of causation is generally the starting point. Did the house flood because of heavy rainfall or a sewer blockage? Did the roof collapse because of snow buildup or defective design? While ideally, all claims would resolve with a satisfying reveal of the cause of the loss, the reality is that there will be scenarios where there is no straightforward causation theory and there are multiple possible independent sources that may have caused the loss. The Supreme Court of Canada’s 2001 decision of Derksen v. 539938 Ontario Ltd is the leading case in ..read more

We all love our pets. But, what happens when their animal instincts take over and they attack a person, causing life-altering injuries? Can you be sued as the pet owner? In Rae v. Gadalla, 2023 BCSC 1398, the plaintiff, Robert Rae, brought an action in negligence and the doctrine of scienter, seeking damages for an injury he suffered when he was bit on the back of his lower left leg in a strata complex elevator by a Yorkshire Terrier named Flex, who belonged to the defendants, Dr. Gadalla and Ms. Abdel-Malik. On October 12, 2018, Mr. Rae was returning to his suite following his daily workout w ..read more

The issue of errant golf balls has always been a concern for golf course owners and operators. The law has made it clear that golf course owners and operators have a duty to protect their neighbours from errant golf balls and to be aware of the potential damage. Taking proactive steps to mitigate the risk of damage caused by errant golf balls can help prevent lengthy and costly disputes down the road. Limit your Liability Canadian law is well established that golf course owners have a duty to reasonably maintain their property as to not unreasonably permit errant golf balls to enter neighbouri ..read more

The general rule is that an insurer’s duty to defend is decided solely on the allegations in the pleadings without resorting to “extrinsic evidence”. One of the exceptions to this rule is evidence that is explicitly referred to within the pleadings. In Monenco Ltd. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., 2001 SCC 49, the Supreme Court of Canada held that such evidence may be considered but only to determine the substance and true nature of the allegations in the pleadings. Extrinsic evidence should not be considered if it would require findings to be made before trial that would affect the underlying l ..read more

Does an agreement between a private entity and a contractor to maintain a public area in accordance with city bylaws create a duty of care owed by the contractor to general users? In a recent decision by the BC Court of Appeal in Magdalena Pavlovic v. Just George Cleaning and Maintenance Inc., 2023 BCCA 219, the Court affirmed that a contractor who maintains a public property on behalf of a private entity does not owe a duty of care to general users of the sidewalk beyond the applicable regulations and bylaws. Background In December 2016, Ms. Pavlovic (the Appellant) slipped and fell on ice/sn ..read more

On March 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) dismissed with costs, the application for leave to appeal from the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal in Valdez v. Neron, 2022 BCCA 30, marking the end of a lengthy judicial process and confirming an outstanding result. The case involved a personal injury lawsuit in which the plaintiff sued the defendants for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. At trial the plaintiff sought over $1 million but the jury awarded damages of just $19,000. The plaintiff appealed the verdict and sought a new trial. The Court of Appeal declined to orde ..read more

In Manson v. Mitchell, 2023 BCSC 723 (“Manson”), the British Columbia Supreme Court (the ”Court”) considered whether a single waiver form applied to a series of mountaineering expeditions following a plaintiff’s fall during his third excursion. Mr. Manson enlisted the services of mountaineering guide, Mr. Mitchell. The pair met on June 15, 2021, to discuss Mr. Manson’s intention to embark on several climbing excursions throughout the summer. Following the meeting, the pair agreed to go on a short sport climb on June 18, 2021, to assess Mr. Manson’s climbing abilities and Mr. Mitchell’s suitabi ..read more

In Cernjul v. The Nordic Insurance Company of Canada, 2023 ONSC 559, the Ontario Superior Court (the “Court”) examined the issues of whether loud music played from a motor vehicle’s speakers constituted use and operation of said vehicle, and whether this use triggered the vehicle’s insurance policy for defence and indemnity. There was an anti-abortion rally held in Thunder Bay, Onatrio.  Mr. Cernjul was attending a counter-protest in an adjacent parking lot.  He parked his vehicle away from the main rally and set -up externally powered music speakers which were not controlled by his ..read more