Document Sample
docs_DFence_May07_Issue3 Powered By Docstoc
					May 2007


Official publication of the McInnes Cooper Insurance Defence Group

                                                                                            Article One
I am pleased to be filling in for Blair Pritchett as editor of this issue of D-Fence, the   LaPierre v. General Accident
official newsletter of the McInnes Cooper Insurance Defence Group. This                     Territorial Limitations in
newsletter is our way of keeping you up to date with the most recent and relevant           S.E.F. No. 44 Claims
developments in Insurance Law in the Atlantic Provinces.                                    by John Kulik

We’ve moved! We’re very proud of our new Halifax premises, which occupy 6                   Article Two
floors of Purdy’s Wharf, Tower Two. Our Moncton office also moved to its new                Two Steps Backwards, One
location in the South Tower of the Blue Cross building, located at 644 Main Street.
                                                                                            Step Ahead: The Appeal
If you’re in the neighbourhood of either office, feel free to drop by for a tour—any
one of our Insurance Group members would be happy to show you our new client                Decision in Sharpe v. Abbott
conference centres and give you a peek “behind the scenes”.                                 by Jennifer Biernaskie

PS: The McInnes Cooper Insurance Defence family is growing!! We are happy to                Article Three
announce that three of our Halifax Insurance Group members are new parents                  Rossignol v. Rubidge
since the date of our last newsletter. Blair Pritchett welcomed his son, Benjamin, in       by Richard Costello
October, Melanie Comstock welcomed her daughter, Willoughby, in October and
Tracy Pasley (née Bastow) welcomed her daughter, Violet, in March. Many thanks              Article Four
to those of you who wrote in to wish them well.
                                                                                            Guardians ad litem Beware!
We hope you enjoy our latest issue.                                                         Case Comment: Rowe
                                                                                            (Guardian ad litem of) v.
Jennifer Biernaskie                                                                         Raleigh Industries of Canada,
                                                                                            2006 CarswellNfld 331 (NL.
IN THIS ISSUE                                                                               by Stacey Grant

In this edition, you will find summaries of significant new decisions and an update         Article Five
on the Charter challenges to the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia caps on minor                “The Cap”: A Brief Update
motor vehicle personal injury claims.                                                       on Current Constitutional
                                                                                            Challenges in Nova Scotia
Those of you working in New Brunswick will be particularly interested in Richard            and New Brunswick
Costello’s article on the very recent case of Rossignol v. Rubidge, which provided          by Peter Rogers and Wendy
clarification on the meaning of “permanent and serious impairment of important
bodily functions” in that province’s legislation.

As always, your input into this publication is valued. If you have suggestions for          Contact Us
topics or improvements, please drop us a note at
You can also email us at that address to let us know of anyone we should add to
our distribution list.

We hope you find this wide range of topics to be useful and timely. If any of our
readers have additional questions about any of these topics please feel free to
contact any of the members of our Group.

Legal Update
Insurance Defence

LAPIERRE V. GENERAL ACCIDENT                                 vessels flying between their ports. This
                                                             unfortunately excludes the claim in question.
S.E.F. NO. 44 CLAIMS                                     What the insurer did not do is question the assertion
                                                         that the mini-bus was in fact “grossly under-insured”.
by John Kulik, Q.C.                                      This eventually became an issue at trial.

There appears to be some inconsistency and               In October, 1999, Mr. LaPierre commenced an action
confusion across Canada as to whether or not the         against General Accident. It should be noted that
territorial limitation provisions found in most          Plaintiff had also named his broker as a defendant in
standard automobile insurance policies apply to          the action on the basis that if there was no coverage
endorsements such as the Family Protection               (due to the territorial limitation clause), then his
Endorsement, commonly referred to as an S.E.F. No.       broker should have secured other coverage in the
44. Justice Warner has resolved this issue in Nova       circumstances. The Plaintiff dropped all claims
Scotia with his recent decision in LaPierre v. General   against his broker prior to trial.
Accident (2007).
                                                         It appeared from the discovery evidence that the
The Plaintiff LaPierre was in Guyana when an             Plaintiff LaPierre had no knowledge of the insurance
accident occurred, in which Mr. LaPierre received        status of the mini-bus in question. Therefore in
significant personal injuries. Mr. LaPierre did not      February 2003, Defence counsel wrote to Plaintiff’s
commence a tort action in Guyana against either the      counsel seeking confirmation that the mini-bus was
driver or owner of the mini-bus in which he was          indeed under-insured. Plaintiff’s counsel produced a
traveling, even though the driver was solely at fault    copy of a letter from a solicitor in Guyana which did
for the accident and the identity and the                not directly address the insurance status on the mini-
whereabouts of both the driver and the owner of the      bus in question, but rather stated that, in Guyana,
mini-bus were known.                                     most insurance companies only give limited
                                                         insurance coverage for third party claims (the
Mr. LaPierre had automobile insurance with the           maximum of which is equivalent to approximately
Defendant General Accident Insurance Company of          $3,000 CDN) and commenting that it was unlikely
Canada. As part of his auto insurance coverage, he       that a taxi would be covered by the one insurance
had an S.E.F. No. 44 which provided coverage for         company that gives greater coverage.
amounts that he was “legally entitled to recover from
an inadequately insured motorist as compensatory         Defence counsel raised objections to the quality of
damages in respect to bodily injury or death             this evidence. Plaintiff’s counsel responded by
sustained by [Mr. LaPierre] by accident arising out of   questioning why this issue was not raised earlier. The
the use or operation of an automobile”.                  only evidence presented at trial with respect to the
                                                         insurance status of the mini-bus was two letters from
On November 10, 1998, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote to       the Guyanese lawyer which contained the
General Accident advancing a claim under the S.E.F.      information described above.
No. 44. In particular, counsel stated that “Our
preliminary investigations have revealed that the        At trial, there were two issues:
motor vehicle in which my client was a passenger
was grossly under-insured”.                              1. Was the Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to his S.E.F.
                                                            No. 44 excluded by the operation of the
On November 23, 1998, General Accident                      territorial limitation contained in the Standard
responded by advising Plaintiff’s counsel that:             Form Auto Insurance Policy for Nova Scotia
                                                            (“S.P.F. No. 1”)?
    The S.E.F. No. 44 is subject to all terms, limits,
    conditions, and provisions of the S.P.F. No. 1       2. In the alternative, was the Plaintiff able to
    Policy which forms part of and is attached to.          establish that the mini-bus in question was
    One of these conditions is “Territory” which            under-insured?
    binds the coverage of the policy to accidents
    occurring in Canada or the United States or on

Legal Update                                                                                                      2
Insurance Defence

With respect to the territorial limitation, Plaintiff’s    only, as per S.P.F. No. 1. In particular, the term
counsel took the position that that clause did not         “automobile” is indeed defined “to the contrary” in
apply to S.E.F. No. 44 claims, arguing that in the         the S.E.F. No. 44 which defines “automobile” as
Insurance Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.231, there is a            meaning “a vehicle with respect to which motor
territorial limitation provision (s.117) with respect to   vehicle liability insurance would be required if it were
Section A claims and therefore, in order to place          subject to the law of the Province governing the
territorial limits on any other type of claim under an     policy”.
auto insurance policy, there would have to be a
similar provision in the Act.                              The major issue in LaPierre, and indeed in both the
                                                           Radu and Sutherland cases, was the question of
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel relied on two cases in    ambiguity. In this respect, Justice Warner’s decision
which the territorial limitation had been held not to      is extremely helpful in dealing with the issue of when
apply: an Arbitration decision from Alberta                an ambiguity in an insurance policy arises. His
(Shulakewych v. Alberta Motor Association Insurance        Lordship held that a true ambiguity only arises when
Company (December 21, 1999)) and the very recent           there are two reasonable but differing interpretations
decision of the Ontario Supreme Court in Sutherland        of the policy. The court should not strain to create an
v. Pilot Insurance (2006) CarswellOnt 4090, both of        ambiguity where none exists.
which found that in similar situations, the territorial
limitation clause did not apply.                           Having ruled that the territorial limitation clause
                                                           applied to the S.E.F. No. 44, the Plaintiff was
In response to the territorial limitation clause           therefore unable to make a claim under his policy.
arguments, defence counsel cited two cases, the            Hence, the issue of whether the Plaintiff had
Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Ortiz v.             established whether or not the mini-bus was
Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (2001),           underinsured was moot, though Justice Warner
24 C.C.L.I. (3d) 25 and Radu v. Hartford Fire              provided a very detailed analysis on this issue.
Insurance Co., [1997] O. J. No. 6356. Again, these
cases dealt with similar fact situations, but in both      Justice Warner’s decision has definitively resolved
cases the territorial limitation clause was held not       the issue of whether the territorial limitation clause
apply.                                                     applies to S.E.F. No. 44 claims. In particular, the
                                                           court was not prepared to create an ambiguity where
Justice Warner rendered a 52 page decision                 none exists simply to allow a Plaintiff to advance a
comprehensively dealing with each of these issues,         claim which would have resulted in an unanticipated
plus some that had not been raised at trial.               recovery and an unrealistic result which was not
                                                           commercially sensible.
With respect to the territorial limitation clause issue,
His Lordship held that the absence of a provision in       The other lesson to be learned from this decision is
the Insurance Act setting out territorial limits for       that when an insurer is denying coverage on a
underinsured motorist claims was irrelevant. The Act       specific basis, the insurer should put in its letter of
provides practically none of the policy terms,             denial that it is not waiving any conditions precedent
provisions, definitions, limits or exclusions that are     and that if the insured intends to pursue a claim, the
found in auto policies and endorsements. To the            insurer will insist on all terms and conditions of the
contrary, the Insurance Act specifically authorizes the    policy being strictly met including any requirement
Superintendent of Insurance to approve the terms of        to provide information. If such a clause is not
policies and endorsements which by necessity are           included and the basis on which the insured denied
not fully set forth in the Insurance Act or Regulations.   the claim turns out to be incorrect, the insurer may
                                                           be estopped from advancing other defences that it
His Lordship quickly dismissed the argument that           may have otherwise had under the policy.
“the automobile” referred to in the territorial
limitation clause referred to the insured’s own auto,

Legal Update                                                                                                         3
Insurance Defence

It should be noted that the Sutherland case has been
appealed and will be heard by the Ontario Court of       For more information, please contact:
Appeal in March 2007. It will be interesting to see if
                                                         John Kulik, Q.C.
that court follows Justice Warner’s reasoning in         902.444.8571
LaPierre and if the law on this point will finally
become more consistent throughout Canada.

Legal Update                                                                                     4
Insurance Defence

TWO STEPS BACKWARDS,                                       which he said that an award would need to be
                                                           “inordinate, out of all proportion, or wholly
ONE STEP AHEAD: THE                                        erroneous” before being capable of being
APPEAL DECISION IN                                         overturned.
SHARPE V. ABBOTT                                           The Court of Appeal concluded that the jury’s factual
                                                           findings were reasonable, but the amount of the
by Jennifer Biernaskie                                     award reflected palpable and overriding error, as it
                                                           was not in line with other similar cases. In reviewing
On January 18, 2007, the Nova Scotia Court of              comparable cases, the Court emphasized the need
Appeal released its decision in Sharpe v. Abbot,           to take a functional approach in assessing general
(2007 NSCA 6). Many will recall last year’s Cape           damages and found that the jury award in this case
Breton jury trial of this matter, in which the Plaintiff   was 2.5-3 times as high as the awards in cases
was awarded $750,000.00 in damages. Most                   regarding similar functional limitations.
notably, this figure included a general damages
award of $225,000.00 relating to soft tissue injuries,     With respect to the award for diminishment of future
which had developed into chronic pain and reflex           earning capacity, the Court commented that "one
sympathy dystrophy. Additionally, the young woman          cannot divine the approach the jury took in
received a $400,000.00 award for diminished future         calculating her loss,” as it did not conform to figures
earning capacity, despite a spotty history of prior        provided by the Plaintiff’s actuary. However, it
employment, all of which had been low-                     nonetheless held that the award was reasonable, as
income/wage-based.                                         the jury may have taken into account contingencies
                                                           which the actuary had not included, such as “higher
This case was appealed by the Defendant on                 rates for disability by geographical region.”
multiple grounds including that the trial judge
incorrectly instructed the jury, and that the jury had     Despite the downward variation of the jury award for
arrived at a “perverse and wholly erroneous                general damages, this case illustrates the difficulties
estimate” of damages. The unanimous decision of            that arise in attempting to overturn generous jury
Justices Cromwell, Saunders and Oland upheld the           awards. The comments regarding the award for
jury’s decision, with the exception of its general         diminishment of future earning capacity evidence the
damages award, which was reduced to $100,000.00.           wide amount of latitude given in determining the
                                                           reasoning for the award. Similarly, this decision raises
The Court of Appeal articulated a two-step test for        the question of whether the general damages award
determining whether to alter a jury’s award. First, the    would have been overturned if it were, say, 50%
Court must consider whether the findings that led          higher than similar cases, which is arguably no less
the jury to the conclusion were reasonable and             unjust for the Defendant.
whether those findings are capable of supporting its
assessment of damages. Secondly, the Court must
decide whether the award is the product of a                   For more information, please contact:
palpable and overriding error of fact, which will be
judged by comparing the amount of the award to                 Jennifer Biernaskie
other awards in similar cases. With respect to the             902.444.8621
latter factor, the Court adopted the comments of     
Chief Justice Finch in Dilello v. Montgomery, in

Legal Update                                                                                                         5
Insurance Defence

                                                             In so holding, Justice Russell followed the analysis of
ROSSIGNOL V. RUBIDGE                                         similar cases in Ontario, particularly in Meyer v.
                                                             Bright, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal,
by Richard Costello                                          and determined that New Brunswick now similarly
                                                             had valid restrictions for injuries that were not
In July 2003, the Province of New Brunswick                  permanent as well as serious impairments of
undertook the greatest balancing act since The               important bodily functions. While the wording in
Great Blondin crossed the Niagara Falls on a tight           Ontario and New Brunswick is somewhat different,
rope. As a result of considerable discontent from            the result is the same.
New Brunswick motor vehicle operators, who were
required by statute to carry auto insurance and pay          The Decision of Justice Russell was understandable
ever-increasing premiums for such coverage, the              and consistent with the intent of the Legislature to
government amended the Insurance Act to restrict             balance competing interests of victims and insured
awards for injured individuals in regards to general         Defendants (policyholders). It was the subject of
non-pecuniary damages; that is, damages for pain             considerable comment in the media and by certain
and suffering. No restriction was imposed on                 members of the Plaintiff’s bar who suggested that
pecuniary losses arising from injury.                        Plaintiffs like Rossignol are victimized twice over: by
                                                             the negligent act of the Defendant; and secondly, by
The restricted damages were further confined to soft         the government.
tissue injuries and minor personal injuries sustained
after July 2003. The theory was that reducing                This case confirms that policy decisions providing
benefits or indemnity payments for the injured               attribution of risk or burden in the Province is a
constituency would provide relief to the motoring            function of the Legislative process. The Legislature
public required to fund, through premiums, the               determines what policies best achieve the
insurance pool available for providing such indemnity.       appropriate balance of risk between members of the
In short, it would provide a better balance to the           public who operate vehicles and members of the
respective burdens of victims and the insured public.        public who sustain relatively minor injury.

On the 5th of March, 2007, the first Judicial review of      Assessment of damages for personal injury is fact
this controversial legislation was delivered in New          driven. Justice Russell has indicated that limiting
Brunswick, in the Decision of Rossignol v. Rubidge,          words in the Insurance Act must be given the normal
[2007] N.B.Q.B. 89.                                          and plain meaning that one would expect. What
                                                             remains undecided, however, since it was not raised
After review of the evidence, Russell, J. concluded          by the parties in this litigation, is whether the
that the Plaintiff, who suffered a slightly comminuted       Legislative scheme is contrary to the Constitution
mid-shaft fracture of the tibia and an additional            and flawed as being non-compliant with the equality
comminuted fracture of the mid to distal fibula, was         provisions. In addition, Justice Russell was not
restricted by the amendments to the Insurance Act in         required to consider restrictions on damages for soft
regards to general non-pecuniary damages, even               tissue injuries which have not, as yet, been defined
though the Plaintiff was hospitalized for eight days         by Regulation and, therefore, may provide greater
and required surgical reduction of his fractures.            latitude for these Plaintiffs seeking to exclude
                                                             themselves from such statutory limits.
Justice Russell accepted that the injury to the Plaintiff
was serious and was not one where legislation                Time will tell whether the current balance is
involving soft tissue injuries had to be considered.         sustainable and whether Blondin can reach the
Justice Russell also accepted that the Plaintiff’s           opposite shore. Stay tuned.
injuries were also substantial with some physical
limitations. However, he concluded that the Plaintiff,          For more information, please contact:
at the date of trial, did not suffer a physical limitation
that excluded him from the limiting effects of the              Richard Costello
Insurance Act on general non-pecuniary damages.                 506.643.6507
The award, in this case, was $2,500; the maximum      
permitted by Statute.

Legal Update                                                                                                           6
Insurance Defence

GUARDIANS AD LITEM BEWARE!                               circumstances the guardian was self-appointed and,
                                                         consequently, Mr. Justice Hall held that Rule 55.10
CASE COMMENT: ROWE                                       had no application in the circumstances.
                                                         In addressing the scope of the Rules, the guardian
RALEIGH INDUSTRIES OF                                    ad litem contended that the procedural rules of
CANADA                                                   Nova Scotia and Ontario explicitly acknowledge the
                                                         personal liability of guardians for costs, and since the
by Stacey Grant                                          Rules are not explicit in this respect, then it must be
                                                         intention of the Courts in Newfoundland and
A recent decision in the Supreme Court of                Labrador not to hold guardians personally liable for
Newfoundland and Labrador has rocked the issue of        costs. Furthermore, it was argued that infant plaintiffs
costs awarded against Guardians ad litem in              must be parties for cost purposes and, absent any
unfounded claims.                                        express provision in a costs Order, the implicit
                                                         interpretation must be that costs are as against the
Since 1996, both the Trial Division and Court of         infant plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem also
Appeal of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and          advanced a public policy argument contending that
Labrador have been dealing with the personal injury      persons would be discouraged from acting as
action of an infant plaintiff who suffered injuries      guardians if there is a risk they may be held
allegedly as the result of the negligent manufacture     personally liable for costs. Consequently, infants may
of her bicycle. The action was commenced by the          encounter difficulties in finding persons to be their
infant’s father, as guardians ad litem, against the      personal representatives when commencing actions.
retail seller of the bike and the manufacturer;
however, the action against the retailer was later       The response of the Trial Division to these
discontinued. At the end of the Plaintiffs case, the     arguments is progressive and shows the Court’s
Defence made a successful motion for non-suit.           determination to prevent frivolous, abusive and
                                                         unmeritorious claims. Mr. Justice Hall acknowledged
Prior to the completion of the Plaintiffs case, the      the possibility that persons may be discouraged from
manufacturer made two separate Offers to Settle          acting as guardians ad litem; however, it was his
pursuant to Rule 20A of the Rules of the Supreme         decision that the larger detriment would be to
Court, 1986 R.S.N.L., c.42, Schedule D, which were       successful defendants who, without the personal
rejected. Consequently, upon its successful non-suit     responsibility of guardians for costs, would be
motion, the Defendant manufacturer sought costs          without relief in seeking their costs. Consequently,
pursuant to the cost consequences provisions of Rule     frivolous, vexatious and unmeritorious claims would
20A. Costs were awarded on a party and party basis       abound.
up to and including the date of the first Offer to
Settle and thereafter on a solicitor and own client      Consequently, it appears unnecessary to specifically
basis. Costs were varied on appeal to allow costs on     name a guardian ad litem in an Order for costs in
a solicitor and client basis as opposed to solicitor     order to hold the guardian personally responsible.
and own client basis. The taxed bill of costs totalled   While this decision may cause individuals to be
at $83,473 and was registered with the Judgment          increasingly cautious in accepting positions as
Registry as against the infant plaintiff and her         guardians, it will also force potential guardians to
guardian ad litem, despite the fact that the Order       conscientiously and thoroughly assess of the merits
itself did not explicitly state that the guardian ad     of a claim prior to proceeding.
litem was personally responsible for the payment of
costs. Upon request by the guardian ad litem, his
name was subsequently removed as a debtor, but
was later reinstated upon the instructions of the            For more information, please contact:
                                                             Stacey Grant
Pursuant to Rule 55.10 of the Rules, court-appointed         709.724.8263
guardians ad litem appear to be exempt from        
liability for costs. However, in the present

Legal Update                                                                                                    7
Insurance Defence

“THE CAP”: A BRIEF UPDATE ON                            constitutional issues in the Hartling and McKinnon
                                                        cases, as well as six other cases where
CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL                                  constitutional issues are raised. The actions in these
CHALLENGES IN NOVA SCOTIA                               additional cases will continue in the ordinary course
                                                        with the constitutional issues stayed pending the
AND NEW BRUNSWICK                                       outcome of the Hartling case.

                                                        There are indications in the Hartling case that the
From Wendy Johnston in Nova Scotia:                     Plaintiffs intend to call further evidence in which
                                                        case any hearing on the merits will be further
The case of Hartling et al v. Attorney General          delayed, making it appear unlikely there will be any
(Nova Scotia) S.H. No. 236705, challenging the          final determination of the constitutional and ultra
constitutionality of provisions of s. 113B of the       vires issues in 2007.
Insurance Act, R.S., c. 231, and Automobile
Insurance Recovery Limitation Regulations,              From Peter Rogers, in New Brunswick:
continues to make its way through the Court. No
date has been set for hearing of the constitutional     There is nothing substantial to report in regards the
issues.                                                 New Brunswick cap challenge cases. The Court has
                                                        indicated that the cases will be managed as a
In March, 2007, solicitor Jamie MacGillivray,           group. The Attorney General is attempting to
applied to intervene in Hartling in the case of John    clarify the extent of allowable participation in each
Alex McKinnon and Saquoia McKinnon, an infant,          action, an issue currently before the Court of
by her Litigation Guardian Kathryn Jean McKinnon        Appeal. The Plaintiff bar is apparently waiting for
v. Adam Thomas Roy, S.P. No. 217706. The                that issue to be resolved before pressing for
Attorney General opposed the application arguing        forward movement.
the application to intervene was in effect an
application by the McKinnons to determine their
own constitutional issues, which is in the nature of
consolidation of their constitutional issues with the
Hartling case. The Plaintiffs in McKinnon argue            For more information, please contact:
their case is distinguishable from Hartling, as there
                                                           Wendy Johnston
are allegations of psychological injury in McKinnon        902.444.8433
which is not the case in Hartling.               

The Application to Intervene scheduled for March           Peter Rogers
15th was adjourned without day. A case                     506.635.2232
management judge is to be appointed to consider  
the matter and manner of proceeding with the

Legal Update                                                                                                 8
Insurance Defence

Contact Us

  As always, please feel free to direct any questions to your usual point of contact at McInnes Cooper.
  Inquiries relating specifically to this publication can be sent to Inquiries of a
  general nature can be directed to any of the following:

                         Charlottetown: 902.368.8473                  Moncton: 506.857.8970
                         Shannon Farrell                              Rémy Boudreau
                         Tamzin Gillis                                Christa Bourque
                         John Hennessey, Q.C.                         Marc-Antoine Chiasson
                                                                      John Friel, Q.C.
                         Fredericton: 506.458.8572                    Denis Thériault
                         Shivani Chopra
                         Patrick Hurley Q.C.                          Saint John: 506.643.6500
                         Greg King                                    Marco Cloutier
                         Ann Marie McDonald                           Richard Costello, Q.C.
                         Leanne Murray                                Shane Dugas
                         Howard Myatt                                 Hillary Flaherty
                                                                      Peter Rogers
                         Halifax: 902.425.6500                        Deborah Watton
                         Jeff Aucoin
                         Michelle Awad                                St. John's: 709.722.8735
                         Robert Belliveau, Q.C.                       Susan Day
                         Jennifer Biernaskie                          Stacey Grant
                         Melanie Comstock                             Deborah Hutchings
                         Ian Dunbar                                   Blair Pritchett
                         Charles Ford                                 Doug Skinner
                         Gavin Giles, Q.C.
                         David Graves, Q.C.
                         Marjorie Hickey, Q.C.
                         Cheryl Hodder
                         Wendy Johnston, Q.C.
                         John Kulik, Q.C.
                         Tracy Pasley
                         Chris Robinson, Q.C.
                         Peter Rogers
                         Harry Wrathall, Q.C.


McInnes Cooper’s newsletters are prepared for information only and are not intended to be either a complete description of any issue or
the opinion of our firm. McInnes Cooper should be consulted regarding any situation to which any topic discussed herein might apply.

Legal Update                                                                                                                              9

Shared By: