Our Firm has a distinguished history in insurance defence litigation. Our relationships are enduring for good reason.
We represent our clients in an efficient, cost effective, and professional manner. We are skilled, versatile, creative leaders in the industry who take cases to judgment.
Every lawyer at our firm defends jury and non-jury tort claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents. We are retained to defend insureds including claims over policy limits, and insurers in underinsured, uninsured, unidentified, Family Protection and Statutory Third Party contexts.
Our lawyers are experienced in defending negligence actions and property damage claims under home owner and other insurance policies for damages arising out of slip and falls, dog bites, fires, water, and defective product and maintenance. We also focus on claim recovery through subrogated actions.
Some of our recent advocacy has resulted in decisions concerning:
- Summary Judgment in MIG cases: Paramandham v Holmes 2015 ONSC ; Calliste v State Farm 2016 ONSC
- Summary Judgment in Social Host context : Sabourin v McKeddie 2016 ONSC
- Equitable Relief: Bannister v McGraw 2016 ONSC
- Three Impacts but One Accident: Kwok v Abecassis 2017 ONSC
- Costs further to a Jury Verdict of no liability in Occupier’s Liability Trial : Brown v Electri-City 2017 ONSC
- The “But For” test for causation in SABS Cases : Sabadash v State Farm 2017 FSCO ( Director’s-Delegate)
- deductibility of collateral benefits and the issue of costs following a trial: Rochon v. Macdonald, SCJ, 2014
- coverage: Bawden v. Wawanesa, CA, 2013
- plaintiff mistrials based on opening address: Hoang v. Vicentini, SCJ, 2013
- an insurer’s right to indemnity under a policy breach: Economical v. Montgomery, SCJ, 2013)
- the definitive Limitations Act ruling: Joseph v. Paramount Canada’s Wonderland, CA, 2008
- the right to trial by jury in the Charter context: Legroulx v. Pitre, leave to appeal to the SCC refused April 15, 2010
- the interplay between deductibility of collateral benefits and a Rule 49 offer: Moore v. Cote, SCJ, 2008
- evidentiary ruling on experts: Igbokwe v. Price, SCJ, 2003
Valid discourse on jury trials concerns judicial economy and their purpose. Length of jury trials is related to evidence that is not probative. Jury trials tell us what Canadians think. Disagreement about the result is not a valid criticism of a jury and does not mean their decision is wrong. Please click here to read “The jury trial: our fellow citizens as our partners in the administration of justice” authored by Todd J. McCarthy and J.-C. Rioux.
Advocacy encompasses a broad range of processes to support a cause. There are opportunities in the area of benefits and negligence law to advocate in formal adjudication settings. This includes administrative tribunals and summary judgment motions. Waiting for a decision and understanding the decision are important to your professional development. Please click here to read “Advocacy Through Adjudication” authored by Frank A. Benedetto and J.-C. Rioux.