Plaintiff & Defence Perspectives: Case comments: Surveillance Evidence and Duty to Defend

Case Comment Nemchin v. Green: Surveillance Evidence.

This presentation is a case comment on the 2019 Nemchin v. Green decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal.  In the ruling, the Court of Appeal considers and clarifies the process and principles for excluding social media and surveillance evidence from trial.  The Appeal Court’s decision in Nemchin confirms the difficulty in seeking to exclude surveillance, and clarifies when and how such an attempt to exclude surveillance evidence can best be made.

Case Comment Hunt v. Peel Mutual Insurance: Duty to Defend.

This is a case comment on the practical implications of a “duty to defend” determination. As part of their insurance coverage, an insurer may have the duty to defend its insured. However this issue is decided entirely on the basis of the insurance policy and the pleadings in the action. There are many practical consequences to the outcome of a “duty to defend” application for both plaintiffs and defendants, most notably whether or not a defendant’s defence will be funded by an insurance company. Also with substantial reference to Pembridge Insurance Company of Canada v. Chu, 2019 ONCA 904. Discussion will briefly address how pleadings, the contents of which are in control of the parties, can be prepared with an eye to the desired outcome, which is generally that an insurance policy will respond to the claim, or that another or different insurance policy will respond to the claim.