Catherine Litinsky

Jul 23, 2024 | law360.ca | Jeremy Martin |Danielle DiPardo |Catherine Litinsky |Terell Parredon Rhooms

ADVERTISEMENT Don't want ads? Subscribe or login now. By Jeremy Martin, Danielle DiPardo, Catherine Litinsky, Terell Parredon Rhooms (July 23, 2024, 11:15 AM EDT) -- The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently dismissed a plaintiff’s product liability claim based on negligent manufacture and the duty to warn, for damages totalling $250,000. The decision of Pelton v.

Jul 15, 2024 | mondaq.com | Danielle DiPardo |Catherine Litinsky |Terell Parredon Rhooms

In the recent decision of Pelton v. Maytag, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a plaintiff's product liability claim based on negligent manufacture and the duty to warn, for damages totalling $250,000.1 This decision clarifies evidentiary requirements necessary to establish a manufacturing defect claim, as well as the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn of foreseeable risks.

Mar 22, 2024 | mondaq.com | Christopher Horkins |Catherine Litinsky

In its recent decision in Desrochers v McGinnis, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the broad application of a vicarious liability provision in Ontario's Highway Traffic Act (HTA) which renders a vehicle owner liable for any loss or damage sustained due to the negligent operation of the vehicle.1 Of importance for vehicle manufacturers who may be named as defendants in such cases, this case demonstrates that the common law and statutory provisions of the HTA can be relied upon to shift...

Mar 12, 2024 | mondaq.com | Catherine Litinsky

In Leeder Automotive Inc. v. Warwick, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on a failed share-purchase transaction.1 This decision demonstrates that a share purchase agreement arising from the triggering of a non-mandatory buy-sell clause in a unanimous shareholders agreement (USA) can be a standalone contract, and therefore that contract has the risk of being repudiated. Appellant John Leeder, as founder/majority shareholder of Leeder Automotive Inc.

Nov 28, 2023 | mondaq.com | Jessica Kuredjian |Catherine Litinsky

In the recent decision in Bustin v Quaranto, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a defendant's motion to strike a claim brought by a bystander alleging personal injuries arising from merely witnessing a double-fatality motor vehicle accident.1 The decision demonstrates that the Court is not willing to dismiss cases like this on their face, suggesting that manufacturers' potential liability arising from incidents involving their products could potentially expand further than...