Blog

The destruction of relevant evidence can significantly impact the fairness of litigation. When a party intentionally destroys evidence that may be relevant to a dispute, courts have long recognized the doctrine of spoliation as a mechanism to address the resulting prejudice. In its recent decision, SS&C Technologies Canada Corp. v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., 2026 SCC 29, the Supreme Court provides guidance on the modern approach to spoliation in Canada.

When cargo is lost, damaged, or stolen in transit, one of the first legal questions is often deceptively simple: what exactly is the contract of carriage? The answer can have significant consequences for determining a carrier’s liability and the value of any resulting claim.

One recurring coverage issue in Ontario insurance litigation is whether a passenger or other occupant of a vehicle qualifies as an “insured” under section 239(1) of the Insurance Act, thereby engaging an automobile insurer’s duty to defend.

In Ontario motor vehicle insurance claims, the definition of “spouse” can have important consequences for coverage. This is especially true under the OPCF44R, the optional family protection endorsement that may respond where an injured person seeks access to additional coverage through a family member’s automobile policy.

Claims involving unidentified motorists present a unique evidentiary challenge. Where the at-fault driver cannot be identified, an insured seeking indemnification under the Ontario Policy Change Form 44R (OPCF 44R) must satisfy an additional statutory requirement before coverage may be available.