CAT at the LAT
This province seeks insurers’ input on joint and several liability reform
Brian Goldfinger on Liability and Losses in Ontario Car Accident Cases
DamagesWithout a personal injury lawyer establishing all of these components, the personal injury case will fail. Meaning, that if Defendant successfully refutes, or creates sufficient doubt to surpass a balance of probabilities, the Defendant will win the case. As a plaintiff personal injury lawyer, you don’t want to see that happen.
Where’s the Accountability in Canada’s Justice System?
Ontario Health Sector: 2019 updated assessment of Ontario health spending
More support needed for unpaid caregivers in Canada
$170,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Hip Injury, PTSD, TOS and Chronic Pain
 The ATE Policy is between DAS and Mr. Nguyen. Aviva is not a party to the ATE Policy, and is not a named beneficiary. The doctrine of privity of contract states that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person except for the parties to the contract: London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., 1992 CanLII 41 (SCC),  3 S.C.R. 299 at para. 200. The exceptions to the doctrine of privity do not apply here, as there is nothing in the terms of the ATE Policy to suggest that the parties intended to extend the benefit to Aviva or to assign the benefits to Aviva: see London Drugs at paras. 255-58.
 Contrary to Aviva’s submission, the ATE Policy contains no ambiguity in respect of the payment of costs and disbursements. The terms of the ATE Policy clearly state that it is applicable to both. The court should not create an ambiguity where there is none: Chilton v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 1997 CanLII 765 (ON CA),  O.J. No. 579 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 26. Given that there is no ambiguity, it is not open to the court to rewrite the terms of the ATE Policy: Skunk v. Ketash, 2018 ONCA 450 (CanLII) at para. 10; Axa Insurance Canada v. Ani-Wall Concrete Forming Inc. (2008), 2008 ONCA 563 (CanLII), 91 O.R. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.) at paras. 30-31.
 Nothing in the language of the ATE Policy requires that an adverse costs order be paid before the disbursements owed to the insured’s lawyer. The issue of priority does not arise because the only beneficiary of the ATE Policy was Mr. Nguyen. According to DAS, once the Proceeds are paid to the beneficiary, the beneficiary can decide how to apply the proceeds. Based on the terms of the ATE Policy, this is the only logical result.
 Moreover, Aviva’s claim does not fall within the limited circumstances under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, where a non-party is entitled to pursue a claim against the insurer. (Insurance Act ss. 132 and 258).The statutory exceptions to the requirement of privity support an interpretation of the ATE Policy that is consistent with its terms.