by single event of insurer’s refusal to pay income replacement benefits.
BONILLA V. PRESZLER ....................................................... (C.A.) 478
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Copyright — Applicant holding licences as broadcast distribution
undertaking under Broadcasting Act — Applicant starting
new Internet retransmitting service — Applicant’s use of
Internet lawful “only” by reason of CRTC’s exemption order
for new media broadcasting undertakings within meaning of
s. 31(1) of Copyright Act as its Internet use was a separate
undertaking from its broadcast distribution undertaking
licences — Applicant not qualifying for compulsory licence
under s. 31(2) of Copyright Act — Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985,
c. C-42, s. 31(1), (2).
2251723 ONTARIO INC. V. BELL CANADA ....................... (S.C.J.) 663
LIMITATIONS
Discoverability — Plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert find-
ing that driver’s speed caused accident — Plaintiff suing
driver within limitation period — Plaintiff hiring new lawyer
who attended accident scene and decided that design of
crosswalk was contributing cause of accident — Plaintiff
moving more than two years after accident to add city and
municipality as defendants — Motion judge not erring in
finding that limitation period was not extended by discovera-
bility principle — Retaining accident reconstruction expert
not sufficient to discharge due diligence requirement.
ARCARI V. DAWSON ........................................................... (C.A.) 36
Estates — Two-year limitation period in Trustee Act for claims
against estate of deceased tortfeasor not applying to cross-claim by another defendant against estate for contribution
and indemnity — Cross-claim governed by s. 18 of Limitations Act, 2002 — Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24,
Sch. B, s. 18 — Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23.
LEVESQUE V. CRAMPTON ESTATE .................................. (S.C.J.) 636
POLICE
Liability — Plaintiff reporting criminal activity by neighbours’ son
to police — Police officer promising plaintiff confidentiality —
Officer not telling plaintiff that her police interview was
being videotaped — Neighbours’ sons arrested — Plaintiff’s
identity and videotaped interview included in Crown disclo-
sure — Neighbours harassing plaintiff to extent that she was
diagnosed as having post-traumatic stress disorder — Trial
judge not erring in finding that police were liable to plaintiff
for breach of confidence — Plaintiff awarded general dam-
ages in amount of $345,000 — Damage award not excessive.
NISSEN V. DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE
SERVICES BOARD .............................................................. (C.A.) 81
PROFESSIONS
Barristers and solicitors — Conflict of interest — 863 purchasing
former industrial lands from Whirlpool (through its related
