MacDonald v MacVicar, 2018 NSSC 272 provides judicial guidance on s. 113BA(1) of the Insurance Act, RSNS 1989, c 231 (“Act”), holding that future loss of income damages for plaintiffs injured in motor vehicle accidents should be calculated on a gross, rather than net basis. Background In MacDonald v MacVicar, 2018 NSSC 271, the court […]
In Temple v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada,1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador determined that the plaintiff, a seasonal worker, was not employed at the date of the motor vehicle accident. As a result, he did not qualify for loss of income payments under Section B of Newfoundland and Labrador’s standard automobile insurance […]
In Fraser v. Runighan 2018 PESC 261, Chief Justice T. L. Clements of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island considered, for the first time on PEI, a motor vehicle accident plaintiff’s motion2 for an advance payment under Rules 20.10 – 20.12 (now Rule 22.1) of PEI’s Rules of Civil Procedure. Background Pursuant to Rule […]
A recent Nova Scotia Supreme Court case, Gale v Purcell, 2018 NSSC 319, demonstrates how the credibility of a plaintiff can play a central role in assessing causation in a motor vehicle accident. Background On September 19, 2006, the Plaintiff, Angela Marie Gale (“Gale”) sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident (“2006 MVA”). On March […]
Over the course of two years, a retirement home administrator by the name of Melissa Gibson-Heath stole $229,000 from an elderly resident of the retirement home where she worked, the Fairfield Manor East.
As of January 1, 2017, Rule 22 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court for ‘Summary Judgment’ was repealed and replaced. Rule 22 for Summary Judgment has now been transformed from a means to weed out unmeritorious claims to a significant alternative model of adjudication.
It is relatively commonplace for corporations to allow their corporate officers to also use the company vehicle for personal use. In MacInnis v Rayner & Raylink, 2016 PESC 40, the PEI Supreme Court addressed the circumstances in which a court might pierce the corporate veil to find that the individual corporate officer is the true owner of the vehicle.