When a healthcare professional is facing a malpractice or disciplinary claim, we know that their reputation and livelihood are in our hands. The healthcare defence team at SVR takes that responsibility seriously and we work diligently to provide our clients with the best possible defence and the reassurance that comes from knowing everything possible is being done to help them. Our experience includes defending healthcare professionals from a range of fields including physicians, dentists, psychologists, social workers and chiropractors.
To learn more about our experience handling defending healthcarel malpractice allegations, please contact a member of the SVR team.
Healthcare Defence Practice Team
Nebozuk v Northbridge General Insurance Company, 2025 ABKB 197 is a recent interesting case pertaining to limitation periods for claims made under SEF 44.
In Amour the Court held that a person is not automatically an “occupant” of a vehicle for the purpose of an exclusion clause.
Bill 47’s intent is to streamline compensation for accident-related injuries, limit litigation, and create a consistent benefit structure across the province.
Limitation periods are a public interest consideration in the legal system which seeks to weigh a person’s right to sue with a person’s right not to have potential legal claims held over them indefinitely.
Must an insurer must provide liability coverage for bodily injury caused by an insured who pled guilty to a criminal offense that caused the injury?
In Busato, Gore denied the claim due to the fact that the appellant had grown approximately 25 marijuana plants.
Trotter and Morton Limited v Biegel, 2024 ABCA 312 is a case of interest with respect to what factual issues can be dealt with on summary judgment versus what requires a trial.
This case serves as a cautionary tale to insurers and as a reminder of their duty of good faith.
Norris v Vomacka represents the first opportunity for the Alberta Courts to consider the new “three-expert rule” implemented by Bill 41.