Patterson Insurance Pulse

Author: Created: 2/23/2012 4:35 PM RssIcon
Insurance Law Blog
By pipblogger on 2/24/2012 12:57 PM
Lawyers – read this before you pick up the phone to book an IME on behalf of your client. An appeal from a reassessment was heard by the Tax Court of Canada in Wagner v. R. 2012 TCC 59 (released February 23, 2012). The Court found that, while medical practitioners do not have to charge GST/HST for IMEs and other medical services, lawyers who pay the bills for IMEs and then later charge their clients for the disbursement must remit GST/HST. Justice Angers wrote: “…obtaining the IMEs becomes part of the [lawyer’s] services supplied to his client in the course of providing legal services. For a lawyer to properly advise his clients, he needs IMEs: they help him with their cases as they do have an impact on how he will advise the clients and on such things as to whether to settle or pursue a claim. They are an integral part of a client’s case and are acquired for use in providing legal services. That being so, GST/HST is exigible.”
By pipblogger on 2/20/2012 12:58 PM
In AGNS v. Jacques Home Town Dry Cleaners 2012 NSSC 42, released on February 16, 2012, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled that a 10% administrative fee charged to the defendant on repairs to a culvert damaged in a motor vehicle accident was a “reasonable overhead charge, that is in fact related to the particular claim. The Crown has satisfied me that this charge has a reasonable foundation for the purpose of recovering costs associated with staff processing this transaction…”. However, Justice Robertson was of the view that “it would be unreasonable to expect the Province to institute any more detailed an overhead recapture, and to do so would likely result in higher overhead cost in recovering these third party additional expense items.”
By pipblogger on 2/3/2012 12:59 PM
Forget what you thought you knew: as of January 10, 2012 there has been a change in the law in N.S. dealing with the limitation period for the commencement of Third Party indemnity claims.  Justice Michael Wood, in Smith v. Atlantic Wholesalers Ltd. 2012 NSSC 14 determined that  “limitation period for a third party indemnity  action in Nova Scotia starts to run at the time that the plaintiff’s cause of action against the proposed third party accrues.” The court declined to follow MacKenzie v. Vance (1977) 19 N.S.R.(2d) 381, widely regarded until now as the leading case in Nova Scotia, citing the Supreme Court of Canada decision  inParkland (County of) v. Stetar [1975] 2 SCR 884 as the highest authority in the Country on point....
By pipblogger on 2/2/2012 1:02 PM
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court (Pickup, J.) was not prepared to increase costs payable to a defendant in a Section B matter by 75% where the defendant successfully won a non-suit motion after making a $1 settlement offer. Under Civil Procedure Rule 10.09(2)(b), the court has discretion to increase the ordinary costs payable by 75% if an offer is made by the successful litigant prior to setting down for trial. In its January 27, 2012 decision, the court did not accept that this was a bona fide offer. Read more: Poulain v. Iannetti 2011 NSSC 29.
By pipblogger on 2/2/2012 1:00 PM
The Nova Scotia government has posted the indexed minor injury cap calculation for 2012. Under the Regulations, the cap is reviewed annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for the previous calendar year.  The 2011 CPI was 3.8%.
By pipblogger on 1/30/2012 1:05 PM
In the January 2012 trial in Drover v. HRWC & Frankton (not yet reported), our firm successfully argued our clients’ case to affirm private rights to block drainage of surface and ground water in an undefined water course. In a decision from the bench, Justice Gregory Warner held HRWC (Karen MacDonald) and the Franktons (Gregory Hardy) to be successful on all issues of law and fact. The plaintiffs (James MacNeil) argued unsuccessfully that the location of a Halifax Regional Water Commission (HRWC) easement on the land, and that the "unique" nature of the land altered the relationship between the properties sufficiently to find a drainage right.
By pipblogger on 1/30/2012 1:04 PM
A landmark decision, Jones v. Tsige 2012 ONCA 32, was handed down by the Ontario Court of Appeal on January 18, 2012, heralding the recognition of the tort of "intrusion upon seclusion". This decision will almost certainly have implications in other provinces.

The plaintiff in the case had been in a common-law relationship with the ex-husband of the defendant. Both plaintiff and defendant worked for the same bank. The defendant accessed the plaintiff’s personal information without just cause or authorization on many occasions, allegedly in order to determine child support payments. An initial motion for summary judgment was defeated by the defendant’s claim that no tort existed, but the appeal court held that a cause of action was available if certain elements are met: (1) the defendant’s conduct must be intentional / reckless, (2) the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff’s private affairs, (3) a reasonable person would find the invasion highly offensive, causing...