Michael J. Sobkin

The respondent was seriously injured when she stepped through a snowbank created by the appellant municipality while clearing angled parking stalls, blocking access to the sidewalk.

The trial judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the municipality's snow removal decisions were core policy decisions immune from negligence liability, and alternatively found no breach of standard of care and that the respondent was the proximate cause of her own injuries.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all three grounds.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the municipality's appeal, holding that the city had not met its burden of proving core policy immunity and therefore owed the respondent a duty of care, while confirming that the standard of care and causation analyses were tainted by legal errors requiring a new trial.

The Court clarified the framework for distinguishing core policy decisions from operational government activities subject to negligence liability, identifying four relevant factors: the level and responsibilities of the decision-maker, the process by which the decision was made, the nature and extent of budgetary considerations, and the extent to which the decision was based on objective criteria.

The insured, a general contractor, was sued for negligence and breach of contract after water damage caused rot and deterioration in several housing complexes it built.

The insured sought a declaration that its insurer owed a duty to defend under its commercial general liability policies.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insurer owed a duty to defend, finding that the pleadings revealed a possibility of coverage.

The Court clarified that 'property damage' is not limited to third-party property and that defective workmanship can constitute an 'accident' if the resulting damage was neither expected nor intended by the insured.

Furthermore, the 'work performed' exclusions did not clearly and unambiguously exclude the claims, particularly given the involvement of subcontractors.

The appellant mining company sued its insurers in the U.S. for coverage relating to environmental damage alleged to have occurred in Washington State.

The insurers commenced parallel proceedings in British Columbia seeking declarations that they were not obligated to defend or indemnify the appellant.

The appellant sought to stay the British Columbia proceedings on the basis that the U.S. District Court had already asserted jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 11 of British Columbia's Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, a foreign court's prior assertion of jurisdiction is only one factor to consider in the forum non conveniens analysis, and the chambers judge did not err in refusing the stay.

A lawyer (Strother) advised his client (Monarch) that its tax-shelter business was dead due to new tax rules.

Later, Strother learned of a potential workaround and agreed to help a former Monarch executive (Darc) obtain a tax ruling for a new company (Sentinel) in exchange for a personal financial interest in Sentinel's profits.

Strother did not disclose this to Monarch, which remained a client of his firm (Davis).

The Supreme Court of Canada held that Strother breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty to Monarch by acquiring a personal financial interest in a competitor that conflicted with his duty to provide candid advice to Monarch.

Strother was ordered to disgorge his profits from Sentinel for the period he remained at Davis.

Davis was held vicariously liable for Strother's breach under s. 12 of the Partnership Act, despite being innocent of the breach.

The eight-year-old appellant was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding as a passenger in a truck driven by the respondent.

The appellant was not wearing a seat belt, and the respondent driver had not instructed him to do so because the appellant's father was also a passenger in the vehicle.

The trial judge and Court of Appeal found that the respondent owed no duty of care to the child regarding the seat belt due to the father's presence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that a driver owes a duty of care to passengers under 16 to take reasonable steps to ensure they wear seat belts, and this duty is not negated by the presence of a parent.