- Personal Injury Law
- Criminal Law
- General Litigation
- Areas We Serve
- Our Legal Team
- Contact Us
- News Media
June 7, 2018
The Supreme Court of Canada has given writers and publishers some protection from lawsuits in distant jurisdictions that allege online defamation, telling a Canadian billionaire who sued an Israeli newspaper to take his lawsuit to Israel.I
In an important decision for publishing in the internet era, when an article or book produced in one country may be read online almost anywhere in the world, the court’s 6-3 ruling stressed the need for fairness in choosing a jurisdiction for a defamation suit.
The Government of Alberta government says it is amending the Minor Injury Regulation (MIR), providing Albertans with more clarity on which injuries, conditions and symptoms are covered. Sprains, strains and whiplash injuries are considered minor injuries. Additionally, the physical and psychological symptoms, along with some temporomandibular joint (TMJ) injuries, are also considered minor injuries.
Toews alleges that she suffered "catastrophic" injuries in February 2009 while staying at the Grand Palladium on a seven-night all-inclusive vacation with her husband and two daughters. Toews has been able to gain jurisdiction in Alberta for the case because her booking contract for food, drink and vacation accommodations was made in Alberta
October 12, 2017
September 13, 2017
Media reports are stating that the insurance company in British Columbia ICBC is financially a wreck. Critics say the beleaguered Crown corporation requires dramatic rate hikes and drastic structural changes to save it from ruin.
January 3, 2017
A doctor in Ontario is being investigated by the College of Physicians for preparing a misleading medical report for TD insurance in regards to a woman who suffered a catastrophic injury. Justice Sean Dunphy issued a decision in which he described a 2014 “executive summary report” prepared by Dr. Howard Platnick about a woman injured in a car accident as “on the face of it misleading.
January 1, 2017
December 25, 2015
September 4, 2016
A British Columbia court recently ruled against the ICBC when it found that a man who suffered a spinal injury while moving his all-terrain vehicle from his pickup truck is entitled to accident benefits.
Section 96(b)(i) of B.C.’s Insurance (Vehicle) Act Regulation (also known as Regulation 447/83) stipulates that ICBC is not liable to pay benefits “in respect of the injury or death of a person …. who, at the time of the accident, is … an occupant of or is struck by a vehicle that could not be licensed under the Motor Vehicle Act or Commercial Transport Act or that is of such design that if owned or operated in the Province could not be licensed under one of those Acts.”
ATV's are not not licensed under the Motor Vehicle Act.
The court cited a Supreme Court Case to provide clarification on coverage:
"There is a two-part test in interpreting coverage, Justice Major explained.
The first question is whether an accident resulted from “the ordinary and well-known activities to which automobiles are put.” The second part of the test is whether there is “some nexus or causal relationship (not necessarily a direct or proximate causal relationship)” between the claimant’s injuries “and the ownership, use or operation of his vehicle,” or whether “the connection between the injuries and the ownership, use or operation of the vehicle merely incidental or fortuitous.”
August 23, 2016
Maynes & Radovici Lawyers would like to welcome a new addition to our firm. Jamie Churchward comes with a wealth of knowledge from years of practicing law in the federal government. She is hard working, intelligent and very personable. Jamie will be starting in the fall.
January 3, 2016
The Court of Appeal released an important decision in regards to Section 8 and Section 11 over consent forms used by the Edmonton Police Service.
In a Dissenting Memorandum of Judgment, the Honorable Mr. Justice O’Ferrall highlighted the significance of the medical information breach in R v Kiene.
The significance of the medical information breach in this case was that the appellant received insufficient protection against self-incrimination. This was not simply a case of a breach of the appellant’s right to privacy or security of the person. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in failing to find that his protection against self-incrimination was breached.
The seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct ought to have been assessed having regard to regulatory regimes which reflect the seriousness with which society views the inappropriate use of medical records and accident reports. In determining whether the admission into evidence of medical information obtained in a manner which infringed an appellant’s Charter rights would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the trial judge ought to have had regard for what other laws were potentially being broken.
In my view, the Charter-infringing conduct in this case undermined the objectives, duties, and safeguards found in our accident-reporting legislation, as well as our health information legislation. Relying upon evidence seized in breach of at least two, and possibly three, provincial statutes in order to convict an accused risks bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. Therefore, the state’s Charter-infringing conduct in this case ought to have been considered very serious, favoring exclusion of the evidence.
April 11, 2016
The Court of Appeal released its decision which denied leave for the Crown to appeal a Court of Queen’s Bench finding which overturned the convictions of Dr. Simona Tibu. That decision is below
Last December, Maynes & Radovici Lawyers appealed a decision that found Dr. Simona Tibu assaulted and resisted arrest from a sheriff during a routine traffic stop for speeding. CBC made an application seeking the dash camera video from the sheriff’s motorcycle and the event became heated discussion about civil rights in the country. The video showed the two struggling on the side of a busy highway and then falling out of view of the camera.
A summary of the findings was that the court found the sheriff’s testimony to be credible. However, he testified that he demanded the driver’s documentation 10-12 times, cautioned the dentist about not providing the documents and had a brief conversation about cell phones all in a span of 40 seconds before he decided to arrest her and remove her from her car.
The court found that was not a reasonable amount of time for the driver to respond to the request as per the Traffic Safety Act law. Further, at no time did the dentist state she would not produce the documents and showed that she did comply with every other command before the arrest.
April 25, 2016
Maynes & Radovici Lawyers participates with counsel from British Columbia in having Fraser Valley Community College declared a vexatious litigant.
Mr. Conteh a father of a student was represented by Mr Maynes. Counsel was given leave to make written submissions on the application, and did so. The written submissions set out arguments in favour of dismissing the claims against Mr. Conteh. The written submissions also asked that the plaintiffs be declared vexatious litigants.
The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Saunders stated:
"As noted by Mr. Justice Hall in S. v. S. (1998), 60 B.C.L.R. (3d) 232 (C.A.), leave to appeal ref’d  S.C.C.A. No. 11, the deeply enshrined democratic right of unfettered access to the courts is subject to the corollary that continuing abuse of this right must be dealt with."
"Ms. Kikla has abused the court’s processes. I am therefore... declaring Fraser Valley Community College and Ms. Sunanda Kikla to be vexatious litigants."
Find Related Cases below:
Contact our office today for a free consultation. Our lawyers attempt to return calls in 24 hour notice.