Sometimes small disputes about technical matters unearth deeper truths about how the law works. This happened in a decision released on January 27, 2017 by the Supreme Court of Canada. Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co on its face concerned a narrow issue of interpretation defining amounts payable under automobile insurance policies. In resolving this issue, the Court bumped into a much more general issue concerning whether and how jurisprudence influences the meaning of words used in private contracts.
A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal makes the question of who you trust with your car more difficult to answer.
An exception to Sattva?: Alberta Court of Appeal applies correctness standard in reversing interpretation of insurance policy
In Ledcor Construction Limited v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Company, 2015 ABCA 121, the Alberta Court of Appeal was required to rule on the meaning...
The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Versa Fittings v. Berkley Insurance Co. (2015 ONSC 1756) reinforces that a Rule 21 motion is an expedient way to secure a ruling on whether an insurers duty to defend has been triggered.
The Court of Appeal recently released a decision that serves as a reminder to all counsel: never lose sight of who you act for.