Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

  • Our Team

    Our Team

    • Lawyers & Clerks
    • Leadership Team
    • Board of Directors
    • Human Resources
    • Marketing & Business Development
    • Paraprofessional Services
  • Our Services

    Our Services

    • Service Areas
      • Aboriginal and Indigenous Law
      • Administrative Law
      • Agribusiness
      • Banking and Financial Services
      • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
      • Business Disputes
      • Business Immigration
      • Class Actions
      • Construction Law
      • Corporate and Business
      • Corporate Finance and Securities
      • Corporate Governance and Compliance
      • Cross-Border Law
      • Education Law
      • ESG (Environmental, Social, & Governance)
      • Estates and Trusts
      • Environmental Law
      • Foreign Direct Investment
      • Franchise Law
      • Health Law
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property
      • Labour and Employment
      • Litigation
      • Maritime Law
      • Media & Entertainment
      • Municipal Law
      • P3 and Infrastructure
      • Pensions and Benefits
      • Privacy, Data Protection and Cyber Security
      • Public Law
      • Real Estate
      • Regulation of Professions
      • SISIP LTD Allowances Class Action
      • Tax
      • Technology
      • View All
    • Industries
      • Cannabis
      • Construction & Property Development
      • Emerging & High Growth Companies
      • Energy & Natural Resources
      • Financial Services
      • Government & Institutions
      • Insurance
      • Manufacturing, Processing & Sales
      • Mining
      • Ocean Economy
      • Private Clients
      • Technology
      • View All
    • More Services
      • MC Advisory
      • MC Legal Lab
  • Our Insights
  • Our Firm

    Our Firm

    • Our Values
    • Our History
    • Our Representative Work
    • Our Global Reach
    • Our News
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
    • Pro Bono Program
  • Our Careers

    Our Careers

    • Lawyer Opportunities
    • Business Professional Opportunities
    • Paralegal & Legal Assistant Opportunities
    • Summer Student & Articling Opportunities
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Stay Updated
  • Contact Us
  • LexMundi World Ready
  • Privacy Policy
  • http://linkedin.com
  • http://facebook.com
  • http://twitter.com
  • 1.866.439.6246
Home > Our Insights > Bailey v. Temple: NL Appeal Court Cautions You Don’t Get More Release Than You Bargained For
Publication

Bailey v. Temple: NL Appeal Court Cautions You Don’t Get More Release Than You Bargained For

Published:

February 14, 2020

Author(s):

  • J. Alex Templeton

Share

Print

NOTE: On July 23, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Newfoundland & Labrador Court of Appeal’s decision respecting the law, but decided the Appeal Court should not have intervened in the trial court’s decision and ultimately overturned the Appeal Court’s decision.

On February 4, 2020, for the first time, an appeal court expressly held the general principles of contract interpretation have subsumed the special interpretation rules that have long applied to releases. Releases are unique: by their nature, parties use as broad and general (often boilerplate) language as possible to maximize the protection they offer in the unknown future. But the Newfoundland & Labrador Appeal Court’s decision in Bailey v. Temple is a caution: a party receiving a release won’t get more protection than what it bargained for. In interpreting the scope of a release’s protection, to determine the parties’ mutual and specific intent a N.L. court will – just as when interpreting any contract – look to the specific references in the language of the release and the context, including the surrounding circumstances, in which the parties executed it.

While releases will still, by necessity, include broad and general language, parties are well-advised to balance that with specificity about exactly what the release is intended to cover and keep the context lined up with that intent. And although Bailey v. Temple isn’t binding on courts outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, parties in other jurisdictions might want to pay it heed: it’s consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to the interpretation of indemnities in its 2019 decision in Resolute FP Canada Inc. v. Ontario. McInnes Cooper Litigation Lawyer J. Alex Templeton represented the successful party in the appeal.

The Case. In Bailey v. Temple, Ms. Bailey suffered injuries when her vehicle struck Mr. Temple, a pedestrian worker, and his employer’s vehicle. She and her husband, a passenger at the time of the accident, sued the employer for recovery of damages respecting her injuries and their property damage. Mr. Temple sued Ms. Bailey for damages for his injuries. Mr. Temple’s employer settled the Baileys’ claim for a nominal sum and received an executed release from them. The release included the usual boilerplate terms, including that the employer was released from “…all demands and claims of any kind or nature whatsoever arising out of or relating to the accident which occurred on or about …”. Years later, Ms. Bailey’s insurer commenced a third party claim against the employer in Mr. Temple’s action claiming that if Ms. Bailey were liable to Mr. Temple, she sought indemnity or contribution from the employer respecting his damages. The employer applied for summary dismissal of Ms. Bailey’s third party claim on the basis the release barred it. The trial court decided the release covered Ms. Bailey’s third party claim against the employer and ordered it stayed. Ms. Bailey appealed – and the Appeal Court unanimously decided the trial court made an error of law in finding the release applied to the third party claim.

The “Special Rule” for Releases. In the past, releases were subject to a special rule of interpretation: the “Rule in London and South Western Railway”, dating to an 1870 U.K. House of Lords decision. This rule guided courts to interpret a release to cover only those matters specifically in the parties’ contemplation when it was given, allowing a court to consider a broad range of evidence of surrounding circumstances.

The General Rules for Contracts. The Appeal Court concluded Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence affirming general principles of contract interpretation have now subsumed the longstanding former rule of interpretation of releases. The Court noted the Rule in London and South Western Railway, “…is, in effect, a particular application of the general approach to contractual interpretation which approach requires taking account of surrounding circumstances known to the parties at the time of contracting, for the purpose of giving meaning to the words used”. The Court then endorsed a new analytical structure for the interpretation of releases:

  • No particular form of words is necessary to constitute a valid release; any words showing an evident intention to renounce a claim or discharge the obligation are sufficient.
  • The normal rules relating to the construction of a written contract also apply to a release; a court will construe a release in general terms according to the particular purpose for which it was made.
  • The court will construe a release that is general in its terms in light of the circumstances existing at the time of execution and with reference to its context and recitals to give effect to the intention of the party that executed it.
  • The court will not construe a release as applying to facts of which the party giving the release had no knowledge at the time of its execution or to objects that must then have been outside that party’s contemplation.
  • The court’s construction of any individual release will necessarily depend on its particular wording and phraseology.

The Application of the Rules to the Case. The Court decided the trial court incorrectly applied these interpretative principles in the case, an error that materially affected the result: what was in the employer’s contemplation in drafting the release wasn’t determinative of the parties’ mutual intent. It was necessary for the trial court to determine what both parties “specifically” contemplated.

  • Specific References. The trial court concluded that because the words of the release were broad and general, the parties must have contemplated releasing both first party and third party claims. The Court held it was necessary to consider the release’s general words against more specific references in it to determine what was specifically in the parties’ contemplation when the release was given. The specific references didn’t reflect losses unrelated to the Baileys’ own damages, or mention the Temple action or the possibility of a third party claim against the employer resulting from it.
  • Context. And it wasn’t sufficient that the broad general wording of the release potentially covered a subsequent third party action for contribution. The trial court was required to assess the context and the surrounding circumstances to determine what an objective bystander would conclude was the specific intent of both parties, and the scope of their understanding. While the Temple action had been commenced when Ms. Bailey executed the release, the third party action had not. This wasn’t enough to put a potential third party action within her contemplation when executing the release. Furthermore, the correspondence between the parties’ counsel made no reference to the Temple action or the possibility that at some future date the Baileys might consider any third party claim against the employer in the Temple action.

Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our Litigation Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.


McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.

© McInnes Cooper, 2020. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.

Share

Print
View Related Content

Related Lawyers

  • J. Alex Templeton

    J. Alex Templeton

    Partner

Related Services

  • Litigation
  • Insurance

Related Industries

  • Insurance

Related Publications

View All Publications
  • Hacked Companies Can’t Be Tagged With “Intrusion Upon Seclusion”

    Jan 26, 2023

    In November 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively decided an organization whose information systems are breached by a malicious third…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Raising Coverage Concerns: 3 Risk Mitigation Practices

    Dec 13, 2022

    The insurer’s duty to defend a claim made against its insured is inextricably tied to coverage: there can be no duty to defend without a…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Court Says B.C. Receiver Can Litigate Despite Arbitration Clause

    Nov 21, 2022

    On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the interaction of arbitration and bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, deciding a…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Delay in Administrative Proceedings: 4 Key Take-Aways for Decision-Makers

    Jul 18, 2022

    The Supreme Court of Canada’s “Jordan” framework, introducing strict timelines for determining unreasonable delay in the context of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • NL Court Confirms Role of Jurisdiction in Injury Damages Calculation

    Apr 18, 2022

    On March 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (General Division) decided that in a personal injury case, quantification of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Advance Costs: Indigenous Perspective Pivotal in “Pressing Needs” Analysis

    Mar 31, 2022

    On March 18, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that an Indigenous government can still satisfy the impecuniosity requirement for an…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Fatal Accident Claims: An Atlantic Canada Update

    Mar 29, 2022

    The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent consideration of estoppel and waiver in the context of a fatal injury case in Trial Lawyers Association…

    Read More
    Publication
  • P.E.I. Non-Disclosure Agreements Act: 3 Key Facts for Employers

    Feb 8, 2022

    This publication has been updated as at December 15, 2022. On May 17, 2022, the P.E.I. Non-disclosure Agreements Act took effect,…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Appeal Court Confirms Key Role of Courts & Injunctions to Resolve Disputes

    Feb 3, 2022

    On January 26, 2022, the British Columbia Court of Appeal extended an injunction preventing protesters from interfering with a logging…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 6 (Liability) Reasons to Mitigate Your Privacy & Data Breach Risks

    Dec 16, 2021

    This publication has been updated as at December 21, 2022. The name of the game is to have a plan to mitigate the risk that a data breach…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Court Puts Brakes on Estoppel Claim: 3 Insurer Take-Aways

    Nov 23, 2021

    On November 19, 2021, in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, the Supreme…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Canada: “Carry On” With Care

    Nov 12, 2021

    On November 4, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law regarding when a judgment debtor “carries on business” for the purpose of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Slippery Snowbanks & Municipal Liability: When is a Policy Not a Policy?

    Oct 29, 2021

    On October 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law concerning the circumstances in which government organizations - including…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Aviva Insurance v. PK Construction: Words Come First When Interpreting Insurance Policy

    Sep 23, 2021

    On September 9, 2021, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its decision in Aviva Insurance v. PK Construction Ltd. Dealing with Nova…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Limitation Clock: Supreme Court of Canada Refines Discoverability Rule

    Aug 3, 2021

    On July 29, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada refined the test for determining when a plaintiff has discovered a claim for the purpose of a…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 3 Tips to Exercise Contractual Discretion in Good Faith

    Mar 1, 2021

    The Supreme Court of Canada continues to develop and clarify the organizing principle of good faith performance in contract law. In its 2014…

    Read More
    Publication
  • C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger: 3 Tips to Honestly Exercise Contract Rights

    Jan 18, 2021

    The Supreme Court of Canada, in the 2014 case of Bhasin v. Hrynew, recognized a general organizing principle of good faith performance in…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller: One-Sided Standard Form Clauses May Be Unenforceable

    Jul 6, 2020

    On June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, a much-awaited decision regarding the enforceability of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Predicting the Claims Landscape Post COVID-19

    Jun 11, 2020

    New types of claims will emerge while insurers may see an evolution or even decrease in the traditional types. Here are the types of claims and…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Callidus Capital Corp: Policing CCAA Proceedings

    May 11, 2020

    The Supreme Court of Canada recently released a much-awaited decision regarding the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The CCAA is…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Coping with COVID-19: Assessing Travel Insurance Claims

    Apr 17, 2020

    The global and domestic spread of COVID-19 has forced Canadians to reassess their upcoming travel plans – and insurers to assess their travel…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Coping with COVID-19: 3 Legal Remedies for Contractual Liability Risks

    Mar 10, 2020

    The global COVID-19 (a.k.a. Coronavirus or SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has implications for many commercial relationships, its evolving nature and…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Compton v. Toyota: N.L. Appeal Court Eliminates the Expert Fact Witness

    Jan 14, 2020

    On December 23, 2019, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal effectively eliminated the category of “knowledgeable fact witness” in…

    Read More
    Publication
  • N.S. Appeal Court Confirms Future Wage Loss Calculated on Gross Basis in MacDonald v. MacVicar

    Nov 22, 2019

    On November 20, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to section 113BA(1) of Nova Scotia’s Insurance Act, in the context of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • New Brunswick’s Enhanced Money Judgment Enforcement Regime

    Nov 18, 2019

    Effective December 1, 2019, the New Brunswick government will finally finalize the reform of N.B.’s money judgment enforcement regime with the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • N.S. Appeal Court Confirms Future CPP Disability Benefits Are Deductible from Future Income Loss Awards in MVA Claims

    Jan 21, 2019

    On January 18, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rendered its unanimous (5-0) decision in Holland v. Sparks, overturning a motion decision…

    Read More
    Publication
  • It’s Not Fake News: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Media Doesn’t Get Special Protection from Production Orders in R. v. Vice Media Canada Inc.

    Dec 4, 2018

    On November 30, 2018, a majority of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada decided the media doesn’t get any special protection from the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • N.S. Court Decides Future Wage Loss Calculated on Gross – Not Net – Basis in MacDonald v. MacVicar

    Oct 25, 2018

    NOTE: On November 20, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision and confirmed pursuant to section 113BA(1) of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • N.S. Court of Appeal Offers 5 Key Insights into the new N.S. Limitations Act’s Saving Provision

    Oct 12, 2018

    On October 11, 2018, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its first decision considering the saving provision in Section 12 of Nova…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Jurisdiction Over Internet Defamation: Same Law, Different Facts in Haaretz v. Goldhar

    Jun 11, 2018

    On June 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the test for jurisdiction over an allegedly defamatory Internet article – the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Extended Earning-Replacement Benefits are Deductible from N.S. Section B Weekly Income Replacement Benefits

    May 11, 2018

    On May 8, 2018, for the first time, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled on the deductibility of Workers’ Compensation Board Extended…

    Read More
    Publication
  • N.S. Appeal Court puts a Lid on medical Pot: No health plan coverage & no workers compensation benefits in Canadian Elevator Industry Welfare Trust Fund v. Skinner & Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal)

    Apr 26, 2018

    The N.S. Court of Appeal has reached two decisions ending one employee’s quest for coverage of the costs of his medical marijuana – at least…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Don’t Bother Asking: Supreme Court of Canada Raises the Bar for Mandatory Injunctions in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)

    Feb 15, 2018

    Mandatory interlocutory injunctions - court orders, made in the context of a lawsuit, that a party take positive action as opposed to refrain…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Dope on Medical Cannabis Health Benefits: Key Considerations for a Coverage Strategy

    Jan 25, 2018

    Insurers have generally been leery of coverage for medical cannabis in both the health benefit claims and in cost of care claims in the personal…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Legal Reality: Canadian Appeal Court decides “Virtual Presence” is enough for production order for user information against non-Canadian company in British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Brecknell

    Jan 12, 2018

    Whether a provincial court will grant police a “production order” under the Criminal Code of Canada requiring a non-Canadian company to…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Watching Your Claims Go Up In Smoke? Five Key Medical Cannabis Cost of Care Considerations

    Jul 10, 2017

    The legal landscape of cannabis (a.k.a. marihuana, weed, pot …) is changing, both reflecting - and contributing to - more relaxed attitudes…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Go Global @ Home: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Global Order to Remove Internet Content in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc.

    Jun 28, 2017

    On June 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed a Canadian court can issue an interlocutory injunction (an order requiring an entity or…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Like it or Not: Supreme Court of Canada decides class action against Facebook can go ahead in B.C. – despite its terms of use in Douez v. Facebook, Inc.

    Jun 23, 2017

    On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that in a contest between the choice of forum clause in Facebook’s online terms of use…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Puts Insurers on Notice in Saadati v. Moorhead: Proof of a Recognized Psychiatric Injury is Not a Precondition to Recovery

    Jun 5, 2017

    On June 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that where a plaintiff advances a claim for negligently caused psychological or psychiatric…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Are Future CPP Disability Benefits Deductible? N.S. Court of Appeal Says Yes in Motor Vehicle Accident Claims in Tibbetts v. Murphy

    May 3, 2017

    On May 2, 2017, the N.S. Court of Appeal decided another case involving the deductibility of CPP disability benefits – but this time, in the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Daniel Watt and Sara Mahaney in Gard Update: Legal privilege in the corporate context in Canada

    Apr 6, 2017

    Adding a third jurisdiction to Gard Update’s comparison between privilege in the corporate context under U.S. and English law, McInnes Cooper…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Dust Off Your Limitation Defence: Court of Appeal Doesn’t Apply Extended Limitation Period in Yarmouth (District) v Nickerson

    Mar 15, 2017

    On March 9, 2017, the N.S. Court of Appeal stopped building inspection claims in their tracks when it decided that a defence based section…

    Read More
    Publication
  • It’s Settled: SCC says Future CPP Disability Benefits Are Not Deductible Under SEF 44 Endorsement in Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co.

    Jan 30, 2017

    On January 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co. that future CPP disability…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Says Privilege Wins Again – Twice in Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada & Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary

    Nov 28, 2016

    On November 25, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided privilege wins again - twice. In two separate decisions - Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Gives a Lesson in Insurance Contract Interpretation in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co.

    Sep 19, 2016

    On September 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided certain damage to a building under construction was covered under the relevant…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Limitation Periods: Avoiding Hitting the Reset Button in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings

    Aug 17, 2016

    The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently affirmed the test for confirming a cause of action and thus resetting a limitation period…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Sticks With Presumptive Jurisdiction Tests for Forum Non-Conveniens in Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP

    Jul 19, 2016

    On July 15, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada, in a long-awaited decision, resisted the invitation to re-write the traditional rules for the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Municipal Liability for ByLaw Enforcement: A Bylaw’s Not a Bylaw in Vlanich v. Typhair

    Jul 5, 2016

    The Ontario Court of Appeal has re-ignited the discussion about when a municipality will be held liable for its shoddy bylaw enforcement…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Weigh Now or Weight Later: New Cargo Container Verified Gross Mass (VGM) Rules Effective July 1, 2016

    Jun 20, 2016

    As of July 1, 2016, packed cargo containers to which the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Chapter VI, Regulation…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Realtor Risk Management: 10 Practical Tips to Help Realtors Manage Litigation Risk

    Jun 20, 2016

    Real estate vendors and purchasers have high expectations of their realtors – and they don’t often hesitate to pursue legal action against…

    Read More
    Publication
  • From Watershed Decision to Watershed Law: Government Proposes Physician-Assisted Dying Law in Bill C-14 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)

    Apr 15, 2016

    On April 14, 2016, Canada’s federal Justice Minister proposed legislation setting out the conditions that a person wishing to undergo…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Doe 464533 v. D.: Business Implications of the Civil Privacy Claim for “Public Disclosure of Private Facts”

    Jan 27, 2016

    On January 21, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dramatically expanded the scope of legal privacy protection – and the liability…

    Read More
    Publication
  • A Glimpse Into The Future of Privacy Law: Medical Marijuana Privacy Breach Class Action Lawsuit Can Go Ahead in John Doe and Suzie Jones v. Her Majesty the Queen

    Jul 29, 2015

    On July 27, 2015, the Federal Court of Canada decided a lawsuit by medical marijuana program participants against the Federal Government…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Bad Faith & Production of an Insurer’s Business Information: 4 Key Implications of the NB Court of Appeal’s Decision in Wade v. Wawanesa Ins. Co.

    Jul 21, 2015

    On July 16, 2015, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ordered an insurer to produce a significant amount of its financial and business information…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Nova Scotia Goes Its Own Way: Future CPP Disability Benefits Deductible Under SEF 44 in Portage Le Prairie Mutual Insurance Company v. Sabean and Hallett

    Jun 8, 2015

    On June 4, 2015, the NS Court of Appeal decided the value of future CPP disability benefits is deductible under the SEF 44 family protection…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Final Form of New NS Limitation of Actions Act: “Sudden Death” Limitation is Out for Personal Injury Claims

    Feb 18, 2015

    The new NS Limitations of Actions Act – the legislation that determines the limitation period (time limit) in which a lawsuit must be started…

    Read More
    Publication
  • No More Criminalization of Physician-Assisted Dying: The Ripple Effects of A Watershed Decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General)

    Feb 9, 2015

    NOTE: On April 14, 2016, the federal government proposed legislation setting out the conditions that a person wishing to undergo…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Thou Shalt Not Lie: SCC Recognizes New Duty of Honesty in Contract Law in Bhasin v. Hrynew

    Nov 14, 2014

    On November 13, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) effected a significant development in Canadian contract law by recognizing the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • NS Proposes New Limitation of Actions Act: The 3 Top Benefits & The 10 Key Changes

    Nov 3, 2014

    Note: On November 20, 2014 the NS Government passed the final form of Bill 64, Limitations of Actions Act into law. The final form of the Act…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Changes to NB Rules of Court Effective October 1, 2014 Benefit Successful Party

    Sep 9, 2014

    Effective October 1, 2014, the New Brunswick Rules of Court will change – some Rules for the first time since they came into effect in 1982.…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Court Orders Feds to Reconsider Canadian Forces Housing Compensation Policy in Brauer v. The Queen

    May 26, 2014

    On May 23, 2014 the Federal Court of Canada decided the Federal Treasury Board Secretariat’s interpretation of the policy for compensating…

    Read More
    Publication
  • What’s In The Pipe? Municipal Liability for Flood & Sewage Back-Up Claims

    May 2, 2014

    April showers bring … flood and sewage back-up claims. Flooding and sewage back-up can result in significant damage for municipal ratepayers,…

    Read More
    Publication
  • A Practical Analysis of “Material Fact”

    May 21, 2013

    In its April 2013 decision in Re Stan, the Alberta Securities Commission provides issuers with a practical approach to the assessment of both a…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Students with Learning Disabilities Have a Right to Education Comparable to that of the General Student Population in Moore v. British Columbia (Education)

    Jan 8, 2013

    On November 19, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) unanimously ruled a B.C. public school system’s failure to provide adequate and…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Contamination Claims: Long Tails or Just Dogs? Practical and Legal Issues of Litigation Contamination Slow-Leak Cases

    Mar 6, 2009

    “Contamination Claims: Long Tails or Just Dogs? Practical and Legal Issues of Litigating Contaminant Slow-Leak Cases”, Cdn Journal of…

    Read More
    Publication

Stay Updated

Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.

Connect With Us:
  • Follow us on Twitter @mcinnescooper
  • Like us on Facebook @mcinnescooperlaw
  • Join us on LinkedIn @mcinnes-cooper
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright © 2023 — McInnes Cooper
Lex Mundi Logo MC Advisory Logo