Generated by All in One SEO Pro v5.0.0.1, this is an llms-full.txt file, used by LLMs to index the site.

# Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

Proven courtroom advocates for insurance law, medical malpractice, appeals, personal injury and municipal litigation.

## Posts

### [No Coverage Until a Request Is Made: The Court of Appeal on Fleet Policies and OPCF 21A](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/)

**Published:** July 30, 2026
**Author:** Chris Morrison

**Excerpt:** A leased Honda Civic was in an accident in August 2020. It first appeared on a monthly fleet report a month later, and had been leased since 2017 without ever making the schedule of automobiles. In 2026 ONCA 553, the Court of Appeal held that OPCF 21A (c) means what its capital letters say: no coverage until a request for coverage is filed, and no coverage backdated to policy inception. Chris Morrison and Kathleen Lefebvre were counsel for the successful appellant.

**Content:**

In [*West York Sales and Leasing Inc. v The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (Travelers Canada)*](https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/24383/index.do), 2026 ONCA 553, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an insurer’s appeal and set aside a declaration that it had to defend and indemnify a lessor under an automobile fleet policy. The Court held that where a vehicle was already owned or leased when the policy took effect but was left off the schedule of automobiles, there is no coverage until a request for coverage is filed with the insurer, and there is no retroactive coverage back to the start of the policy term. Because the first communication about this vehicle came more than a month after the accident, there was no coverage and no duty to defend. The judgment below, [2025 ONSC 3845](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc3845/2025onsc3845.html), was set aside.

[Kathleen Lefebvre](https://dcmlaw.ca/kathleen-lefebvre/) and I were counsel for the successful appellant on the appeal. [Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/) and I acted for the insurer on the application below.

## Background

West York Sales and Leasing Inc. owned a 2017 Honda Civic and leased it, along with other vehicles, to a car and truck rental operator on a lease that began in February 2017. The rental operator held a monthly reporting basis fleet policy issued by Dominion, which does business as Travelers Canada, for the term September 15, 2019 to September 15, 2020. The lease required that West York be added as an additional insured, and the policy was arranged through the operator’s insurance broker. In practice the operator sent a monthly fleet list to the broker, who calculated the premium and remitted it to the insurer.

The vehicle had a reporting history. It appeared on the monthly fleet reports from 2017, was recorded as received in February 2018, and was still on the report for May 2019. It then dropped off the reports from June 2019 onward. West York’s evidence, which the insurer challenged as double hearsay, was that the vehicle had suffered engine failure in June 2019 and was taken off the road for extensive repairs that the pandemic delayed. Whatever the reason, the vehicle was not on the schedule of automobiles filed when the policy term began on September 15, 2019, and it did not appear on any monthly report during the term until August 2020.

On August 24, 2020 the operator rented the vehicle out. On August 25, 2020 it was involved in an accident in which a pedestrian was struck. Neither the operator nor anyone else notified the insurer.

On September 29, 2020, fourteen days after the September 15 deadline, the August 2020 monthly fleet report was filed. That report listed the vehicle for the first time in more than a year and gave its date of receipt as August 15, 2020. Nothing in it disclosed that the vehicle had in fact been owned and leased well before the policy term began. The premium for that month, $7,540, was calculated and paid. The insurer did not reject the late report and never returned the premium.

The damages action was commenced on August 17, 2022, and West York was served two days later. The insurer learned of the accident on July 10, 2023, almost three years after it happened, when it was contacted by West York’s own insurer, which took the position that Dominion had to defend West York in priority. Dominion denied coverage by letter dated October 17, 2023, on the basis that the vehicle had not been added to the policy until after the loss. That letter went to the rental operator and was copied to the broker. No denial letter was sent to West York. The operator accepted the denial. West York did not, and brought an application for a declaration of coverage in respect of a claim its counsel put at roughly $1 million.

## The OPCF 21A Framework

The Ontario Policy Change Form Monthly Reporting Basis Fleet endorsement, OPCF 21A, exists so that vehicles can move in and out of a fleet without a new certificate of insurance being issued each time. Premiums track the number of vehicles in the fleet in a given month, and the certificate of insurance in this case made it the lessor’s responsibility to verify the accuracy of the monthly reports.

As the Court of Appeal set out, a vehicle can come to be insured under OPCF 21A in one of three ways:

1. Vehicles owned or leased for more than 30 days at the beginning of the policy term, provided they appear on the schedule of automobiles filed with the insurer at inception;
2. Vehicles added to the fleet after the policy term begins, captured through the monthly report filed by the fifteenth of the following month; and
3. Vehicles owned or leased before the policy term that the insured did not include on the schedule. These are not insured until a request for coverage is made.

The third category is governed by the second sentence of OPCF 21A (c), which is set out in capital letters and provides that no coverage is provided on any automobile owned or leased by the insured before the effective date of the policy which is not included on the schedule filed with the insurer “until a request for coverage has been filed with the insurer”.

Notably, the Court of Appeal found no published regulatory history explaining why clause (c) was included. Neither the former Financial Services Commission of Ontario nor its successor, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, has published explanatory notes on its drafting. Based on comparable wording in other Canadian and foreign fleet policies, the Court observed that clause (c) appears to originate in standard commercial fleet underwriting rather than in any particular legislative amendment.

## The Decision Below

The application was heard on April 8, 2025, and Fowler Byrne J. released reasons granting West York the declaration it sought. She framed four questions: whether the vehicle was part of the policy on the date of the accident; if not, whether it could be added by monthly reporting; whether coverage could be denied because the fleet report was fourteen days late; and whether coverage could be denied for breach of the statutory conditions.

The first question decided the application and made the second moot. Paragraph (a) of OPCF 21A captured the vehicle, since it was owned and licensed in the insured’s name and leased for more than 30 days. Paragraph (c), on the application judge’s reading, then defines the content of the schedule: it provides that the schedule filed with the insurer includes all automobiles as set out in (a) at the effective date of the policy. Because the vehicle answered the description in paragraph (a) as of September 15, 2019, it was part of the schedule as a matter of definition, whether or not it had actually been listed. On that reasoning the capitalized wording in paragraph (c) became, in her words, “not relevant”, since a vehicle already on the schedule requires no request for coverage.

She went on to hold, relying on *Lombard Canada Ltd. v Zurich Insurance Company*, 2010 ONCA 292, 101 O.R. (3d) 371, that a monthly fleet report is not itself part of the contract of insurance, and that its function is to identify the vehicles in use and calculate the premium owed. The purpose of a fleet endorsement is to allow vehicles to come on and off the policy month to month without a fresh certificate issuing each time. On that view the fourteen day delay did not affect coverage for August 2020.

On the statutory conditions, she found a breach of the obligations to report the accident, but granted relief from forfeiture on the *Kozel* factors, a remedy West York had not sought. She declined to address the insurer’s request for a stay arising out of a partial settlement between West York and its broker, on the basis that no notice of motion or application raising it had been brought before her.

## The Court of Appeal’s Analysis

Because the policy is a standard form contract, the standard of review was correctness: *Ledcor Construction Ltd. v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co.*, 2016 SCC 37, \[2016\] 2 S.C.R. 23. Clear policy wording is given effect in the context of the policy as a whole; where there is ambiguity, coverage terms are read broadly and exclusions narrowly. Contra proferentem did not assist West York, because OAP1 and OPCF 21A are regulated standard forms and were not drafted by the insurer.

***A request for coverage was required***

The Court rejected the submission, and the application judge’s conclusion, that the limiting words in clause (c) had no meaning. Paragraph (a) provides coverage for vehicles owned or leased for more than 30 days, but the capitalized second sentence of paragraph (c) restricts that coverage for one defined group of vehicles. Wording deliberately highlighted in capital letters must be given some meaning.

The Court explained why the distinction is coherent. An insurer has the right to assess risk when it agrees to provide coverage. The schedule filed at inception is what establishes the underwriting profile, and the insurer accepts future acquisitions because it has already accepted that profile. Here, the profile did not include the Civic, because the insured already had it and did not disclose it.

Both courts worked from *Lombard* and arrived at opposite results. The application judge took from it that a fleet endorsement exists to let vehicles move on and off a policy through monthly reporting, and read paragraph (c) so as not to obstruct that purpose. The Court of Appeal took from it the anterior principle that clear words are given effect in the context of the policy as a whole, and treated the capitalized sentence as clear words that had to be given work to do. Because a regulated standard form attracts correctness review, the Court was free to substitute its own reading rather than defer to the interpretation below.

***Was a request made on September 29, 2020?***

This is the part of the reasons most worth reading closely. The Court was sceptical that filing a monthly report qualifies as a request for coverage. The purpose of the monthly report under OPCF 21A (f) is to calculate the premium payable on vehicles already covered, not to determine coverage, and this report contained no express request and did not disclose that the vehicle had been left off the schedule.

The Court did not resolve the point. Because “request for coverage” is undefined and coverage language is read broadly, it assumed in West York’s favour that the September 29 filing was capable of constituting a request, and moved on to the question that actually decided the appeal.

***When would coverage begin?***

OPCF 21A makes no provision for retroactive coverage. Retroactive *reporting* under paragraph (f) addresses the premium consequences of coverage, not which vehicles are covered. The word “until” is clear, and the Court held it is synonymous with the word “before”: there is no coverage until a request is made.

The earliest communication to the insurer about this vehicle was September 29, 2020. The accident was August 25, 2020. On any reading, coverage could not have started before the request, so there was no coverage for the accident and no duty to defend. To hold otherwise would drain the capitalized limitation in clause (c) of force and effect.

Because the coverage issue was determinative, the Court found it unnecessary to address relief from forfeiture. The appeal was allowed, and on the agreement of the parties the Court awarded Dominion costs of $35,000 all inclusive: $15,000 for the appeal and $20,000 in respect of the decision below.

## Takeaways

**Coverage and breach of condition are different arguments.** The insurer accepted the late report, kept the premium, and never raised late filing in its denial letter. None of that mattered, because the case was not about an insured breaching a reporting obligation. It was about coverage that had never attached. The distinction is not academic: relief from forfeiture under section 129 of the *Insurance Act* is available where coverage has been triggered and the insured then fails to comply with a term of the policy, but it is not available where coverage was never triggered at all: *Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus v Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada*, 2024 ONCA 607, 500 D.L.R. (4th) 548; *Kozel v The Personal Insurance Company*, 2014 ONCA 130, 119 O.R. (3d) 55. Framing a fleet dispute correctly at the outset determines whether that remedy is even on the table.

**The monthly report is a premium mechanism, not a coverage mechanism.** For vehicles in the first two OPCF 21A categories the distinction rarely bites. For a pre term vehicle left off the schedule, it is decisive. The two decisions divide almost entirely on this point, and the appellate answer is that reporting sets the premium while the schedule and the request set coverage.

**Standard form policies attract correctness review, and that shapes appeal strategy.** Where the dispute turns on the meaning of OAP1 or an OPCF endorsement rather than on findings of fact, there is no deference owed to the interpretation below. That makes policy interpretation among the more appealable categories of coverage decisions, and it is worth assessing at the outset of a coverage dispute rather than after judgment.

**The holding is narrower than it may first appear.** The Court did not define “request for coverage”, and expressly left open whether a monthly report can amount to one. What it decided is that coverage runs forward from the request and not backward to inception. Counsel should expect the definitional question to return in a case where the timing of the request does not dispose of the claim.

**For lessors and fleet operators, the schedule is the document that matters.** A vehicle temporarily out of service is still owned or leased. Dropping it off the monthly reports does not suspend the lease, and if it is not on the schedule when a new term begins it falls into the third category, where the consequence is not a premium adjustment but the absence of coverage. Lessors relying on a lessee to add them as an additional insured should verify the schedule at each renewal rather than assume that monthly reporting will pick up anything missed.

**A structural warning for additional insureds.** West York did nothing wrong once the claim reached it. It lost anyway, on a disclosure gap created years earlier by the party that controlled the policy and filed the reports. Where a lessee arranges the insurance, the lessor carries the consequences of the lessee’s paperwork, and a certificate of insurance naming the lessor is not a substitute for confirming what is actually on the schedule.

## How We Can Help

Our [insurance law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/) group acts for insurers and policyholders in coverage disputes, duty to defend applications, and policy interpretation questions of the kind this appeal raised. We have written before on how policy obligations can defeat an otherwise viable claim, including [a subrogated claim defeated by a breach of builder’s risk obligations](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-contract-strikes-back-how-a-breach-of-builders-risk-obligations-defeated-a-subrogated-claim/). Our [appellate advocacy](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-appellate-advocacy/) practice takes coverage and civil litigation matters to the Court of Appeal for Ontario and appears as counsel for other firms on appeal.

If you are dealing with a fleet coverage question, a denied claim, or a decision you are considering appealing, [contact Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/).

*Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is a civil litigation and appellate advocacy boutique with offices in Toronto, Huntsville, and Bowmanville. The firm’s practice areas include insurance law, medical malpractice, personal injury, municipal litigation, and appellate advocacy.*

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Appeal, Civil Litigation, Costs, Court of Appeal, Exclusions, Motor Vehicle Accident

---

### [After the Deluge: When Ottawa Basement Flooding Points to Construction Deficiencies](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/)

**Published:** July 14, 2026
**Author:** Peter Reinitzer

**Excerpt:** The historic Canada Day 2026 storm left thousands of Ottawa homeowners tearing out drywall and replacing ruined furnaces. But an extraordinary weather event does not absolve builders and engineers of liability: where one home floods while its neighbours stay dry, the real cause may be a hidden construction defect, and that opens a very different path to recovery, if you act before the limitation clock runs out.

**Content:**

The historic downpour that struck Ottawa on Canada Day 2026 has left thousands of homeowners facing an unprecedented crisis. As reported by [CP24](https://www.cp24.com/news/canada/2026/07/11/canada-day-storm-a-1-in-200-year-weather-event-with-167-mm-of-rain-in-some-areas-city-of-ottawa/), municipal data reveals that the torrential storms dumped a staggering 167 mm of rain on some parts of the city’s west end in just a matter of hours, making it a close to 1-in-200-year weather event. Environment Canada recorded a record-shattering 118 mm at the Ottawa International Airport alone, causing catastrophic surface water accumulation and overwhelming infrastructure.

As the initial shock subsides and the daunting process of tearing out drywall, replacing ruined furnaces, and sorting through destroyed personal belongings begins, many residents are left wondering how this happened to their homes.

While municipal infrastructure was undoubtedly pushed to its absolute limits, an exceptional weather event does not automatically absolve private actors of liability. For many homeowners, the ultimate failure of their property to withstand the storm was the direct result of hidden construction deficiencies, negligent design, or substandard workmanship.

If you suspect that poor construction or flawed engineering played a role in how water entered your home, it is critical to act immediately. Investigating these deficiencies thoroughly and securing experienced construction litigation counsel early can mean the difference between recovering your massive financial losses or being left to absorb them entirely.

## The Intersection of Heavy Rainfall and Construction Negligence

When a home is designed and constructed, it must comply with the *Ontario Building Code*, which requires that foundations, grading, weeping tiles, and sump pump systems be able to manage significant hydrostatic pressure and divert surface runoff away from residential structures.

Even during an extraordinary weather event, Ontario law looks at whether a builder, contractor, or engineer failed to meet these standards. If a home suffers severe flooding while adjacent, similarly situated properties remain dry, it strongly suggests that localized structural or systemic failures occurred rather than an unavoidable environmental inevitability. Common construction deficiencies that come to light during heavy rainfall events include:

- **Defective Foundation Waterproofing:** Failure to properly apply damp-proofing membranes, parging, or protective barriers to foundation walls, allowing water under high pressure to seep directly through poured concrete or block walls.
- **Improper Lot Grading:** Grading that slopes inward toward the residential foundation rather than outward toward municipal swales or catch basins, effectively transforming the perimeter of the home into a collection basin for thousands of gallons of runoff.
- **Substandard Drainage and Weeping Tile Systems:** Faulty installation, crushing, or complete omission of weeping tiles (subsurface drainage pipes), or failing to properly connect these systems to a functioning sump pit or storm sewer.

## The Critical Importance of a Thorough, Immediate Investigation

Proving a construction negligence claim requires an exacting, evidence-driven approach. The burden of proof rests on the homeowner to demonstrate that a specific deficiency existed, that it fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent builder or contractor, and that this deficiency caused or worsened the flood damage.

Navigating this process requires engaging independent experts early on. While insurance adjusters are currently assessing the financial scope of the loss, they rarely investigate third-party liability or structural construction defects. Homeowners often need to retain independent forensic engineers or specialized home inspectors who can conduct localized excavations, perform elevation checks, and review architectural drawings to uncover the root structural failure before the site is altered by permanent repairs.

## The Clock is Ticking: Limitation Periods and Legal Expiry

In Ontario, civil claims are strictly governed by the *Limitations Act, 2002*. Under Section 4, a plaintiff generally has a basic limitation period of two years to commence a lawsuit from the day the claim was discovered. While the devastating flood of July 1, 2026, marks the obvious and catastrophic manifestation of damage, it would be a dangerous legal error to assume that you automatically have until July 2028 to issue a claim.

Under Ontario’s discoverability rules, a limitation period begins to run when a person first knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that injury or damage had occurred due to the act or omission of the defendant. If a defendant can point to prior indicia of construction deficiencies that were observable before the flood, the court may find that the limitation period began running much earlier.

For example, if your basement had a minor, recurring wall leak in 2025, or if you noticed persistent pooling water against the foundation during previous spring thaws and raised concerns with your builder, a court could rule that you possessed sufficient information to investigate a claim at that earlier date. Consequently, the limitation period could expire months ahead of July 2028, rendering a lawsuit statutorily barred before it is even filed. Waiting until insurance disputes are entirely resolved or until physical renovations are completed before consulting counsel jeopardizes your financial recovery.

## Protecting Your Investments and Your Rights

The financial impact of a flooded basement regularly reaches into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, particularly if foundational stability is compromised or extensive mould remediation is required. While insurance may cover a portion of the immediate cleanup, it frequently falls short of covering the total loss of personal property, structural remediation, and the resulting devaluation of your home.

If you have been affected by the recent Ottawa floods and have reason to believe that construction deficiencies left your home vulnerable, you do not have to carry that burden alone. We urge affected homeowners to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the root cause of their property damage and to engage experienced legal counsel as soon as possible to protect their rights and secure the compensation they deserve.

Our team has extensive experience navigating complex construction negligence files across Ontario. We regularly represent property owners in holding developers, builders, engineers, subcontractors, and municipalities accountable for substandard workmanship and structural deficiencies. If your home has suffered significant damage and you suspect construction defects are to blame, [contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) today to discuss your investigative and legal options.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Causation, Construction Negligence, Flood, Latent Defects, Property Loss, Residential, Standard of Care

---

### [Playing for SickKids at the 2026 Heatwave Beach Volleyball Tournament](https://dcmlaw.ca/playing-for-sickkids-2026-heatwave-beach-volleyball-tournament/)

**Published:** July 13, 2026
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** On July 11, 2026, our team traded the office for the sand at Woodbine Beach to play in the 32nd annual Heatwave for SickKids beach volleyball tournament. The event, which holds a Guinness World Record as the largest of its kind, has raised roughly $5 million for SickKids Foundation, and we were glad to lend a hand.

**Content:**

On Saturday, July 11, 2026, the lawyers and staff of [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/introducing-davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/) traded the office for the sand at Woodbine Beach to take part in the 32nd annual [Heatwave for SickKids](https://www.heatwaveevents.com/) beach volleyball tournament.

Heatwave has been a Toronto summer tradition since 1995. It has grown into one of the largest charity beach volleyball events anywhere and holds a Guinness World Record as the largest beach volleyball tournament ever held.

Every team plays in support of the [SickKids Foundation](https://www.sickkidsfoundation.com/) and The Hospital for Sick Children. Organizers report that the tournament has raised roughly $5 million for SickKids over more than three decades.

Supporting a children’s hospital is close to home for a firm whose work includes [medical malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-medical-malpractice/) and serious personal injury. We see every day how much skilled, well-resourced care matters to children and their families.

We had a great day on the court, and we are grateful to Heatwave and its organizers for putting on such a well-run event for such a good cause. Readers who would like to support SickKids can learn more or donate through the SickKids Foundation.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Community Involvement

---

### [Ontario's Auto Accident Benefits Change Today: What the July 1, 2026 Reforms Mean for You](https://dcmlaw.ca/ontario-accident-benefits-changes-july-1-2026/)

**Published:** July 1, 2026
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** As of July 1, 2026, most of Ontario's auto accident benefits are no longer automatic. Only medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care remain mandatory, while income replacement and most other benefits become optional coverage you have to buy. Here is what changed under Ontario Regulation 383/24, who may lose access, and what every driver should do at renewal.

**Content:**

As of today, July 1, 2026, one of the most significant changes to Ontario’s auto insurance system in decades takes effect. Under Ontario Regulation 383/24, which amends the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (the SABS, O. Reg. 34/10), most of the accident benefits that have been built into every Ontario auto policy for years are no longer automatic. From today, only a small core of benefits remains mandatory, and most of the rest become optional coverage that you have to choose and pay for. Here is what has changed, who is affected, and what you should do about it.

## What Has Changed

Until now, every Ontario auto insurance policy included a standard package of accident benefits that applied after a collision regardless of who was at fault, covering everything from income replacement to caregiving and funeral costs. The reform reclassifies most of those benefits from default coverage to optional coverage. The intent, according to the government and the regulator, is to give drivers more choice and the ability to lower their premiums by paying only for the benefits they want. The trade-off, which we return to below, is a real risk of being underinsured.

## What Stays Mandatory

Three benefits remain mandatory in every Ontario auto policy:

- **Medical benefits**
- **Rehabilitation benefits**
- **Attendant care benefits**

The standard limits for these benefits are unchanged: $3,500 under the Minor Injury Guideline, $65,000 combined for non-catastrophic impairments, and $1,000,000 for catastrophic impairments. It is worth understanding that even the mandatory coverage can fall short in a serious case. The $65,000 non-catastrophic limit covers both treatment and attendant care, and for a badly injured person it can be used up well before recovery is complete.

## What Becomes Optional

Most other accident benefits are now optional, which means that unless you buy them, you will not have them after a crash. The benefits that have become optional include:

- Income replacement
- Non-earner benefits
- Caregiver benefits
- Housekeeping and home maintenance
- Death benefits
- Funeral benefits
- Expenses of visitors
- Lost educational expenses
- Damage to clothing and personal items

Income replacement deserves particular attention. Under the old system, anyone unable to work because of a car accident could generally access income replacement automatically. From today, if you have not purchased that coverage, it will not be there, and it is often the benefit people need most.

## Your Auto Insurer Now Pays First

A second important change concerns the order of payment. Your auto insurer will now generally be the first to pay for medical and rehabilitation treatment after a collision, ahead of your workplace or private extended health plan. Under the old rules, injured people often had to exhaust their workplace or private health benefits before the auto insurer would step in. OHIP continues to cover hospital and physician services as it always has. This change should speed access to care and preserve your private benefits for other needs, though the usual requirement that treatment be reasonable and necessary, along with any policy exclusions, still applies.

## Who May Lose Access to Coverage

This is the change that concerns us most. The now-optional benefits are available to a narrower group of people than before, generally the named insured, the drivers listed on the policy, and certain dependants in the household. The practical result is that some people who used to be covered may no longer have access to these optional benefits. That can include pedestrians and cyclists struck by a vehicle, and some passengers, who are strangers to the policy involved. If you or someone in your household does not carry the optional benefits, an injured pedestrian or cyclist may find that coverage is simply not available to them. Households with cyclists, and anyone who does not own a vehicle themselves, should think carefully about this gap.

## The Choice, and the Risk

There are two sides to this reform, and we think both are worth stating plainly.

On one hand, drivers now have genuine flexibility. If you already have strong income replacement and extended health coverage through your employer, paying again for overlapping auto benefits may not make sense, and the reform lets you avoid that. Premium savings are a real possibility.

On the other hand, the benefits that are easiest to drop to save money, such as income replacement, are frequently the ones that matter most after a serious crash. Any loss that your accident benefits do not cover has to be pursued through a tort claim against the at-fault driver, which is slower, less certain, and more expensive than accessing your own benefits. Someone with no income and no income replacement coverage can be pressured into an early, low settlement simply because they cannot afford to wait. The decisions you make at renewal now carry consequences that used to be handled automatically.

## The Deadlines Have Not Changed

The reform does not change the key deadlines, which remain strict. You must notify your insurer of your intention to claim within seven days of the accident, submit the Application for Accident Benefits (the OCF-1) within 30 days of receiving the application package, and bring any dispute to the Licence Appeal Tribunal within two years. Our guide on [how to apply for accident benefits after a car accident](https://dcmlaw.ca/applying-for-accident-benefits-after-a-car-accident-in-ontario/) walks through the process in detail.

## What You Should Do

- **Review your auto policy now, and again at renewal.** Do not assume that “the same as last year” means the same coverage. On renewal, your existing coverage generally continues automatically unless you agree in writing to change it, but this is the moment to decide what you actually need.
- **Talk to your broker about the optional benefits**, income replacement in particular, and confirm what your policy will and will not cover.
- **Check your household.** Consider whether dependants, and cyclists or pedestrians in your family, would have access to benefits under your policy or anyone else’s.
- **Check for overlap** with your workplace or private health and disability coverage before deciding to drop anything.
- **After a crash, act quickly and keep records**, and get legal advice early so nothing is lost to a missed deadline. Our overview of the [steps to take after a car accident in Ontario](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-car-accidents-in-ontario/) is a useful starting point.

## How We Can Help

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP has acted in motor vehicle and insurance matters for decades, on both sides of these disputes, and that experience gives us a clear view of how this reform will play out in practice. If you have been injured in a collision, we can help you access the accident benefits you are entitled to, challenge a denial at the Licence Appeal Tribunal, and pursue a tort claim against an at-fault driver for losses your benefits do not cover.

If you have questions about how these changes affect you, or you have been hurt in a car accident, our [car accident lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/car-accident-lawyer-toronto/) can help. [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) to arrange a consultation.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Accident Benefits, Catastrophic Injury, Motor Vehicle Accident, Non-Earner Benefits

---

### [Introducing Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/introducing-davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/)

**Published:** January 1, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Effective January 1, 2024, Will Davidson LLP continues its practice as Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP. Led by managing partner David Morin, the firm handles civil litigation, insurance, medical malpractice, personal injury, appellate advocacy, and municipal litigation from offices in Toronto, Huntsville, and Bowmanville.

**Content:**

We are pleased to announce that effective January 1st, 2024, Will Davidson LLP will continue its practice under the new name [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/).

Lead by managing partner, [David Morin](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin), Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP will continue its focus on a wide range of civil litigation matters including insurance defence, medical malpractice, catastrophic injury claims, appellate advocacy and municipal litigation.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP represents both individual and institutional clients throughout Ontario and has offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville.

![David Morin, Managing Partner](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/3da581ea-453c-459e-aa76-9e77469d0325/DAM.jpg/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280 "David Morin, Managing Partner")David Morin, Managing PartnerDavid Morin is full of optimism and excitement as managing partner of this newly branded firm: “I am overjoyed to lead this fine group of talented lawyers and legal staff into a new era of exceptional legal services combined with cutting edge technology,” says David.

“It really is the dawn of new way to practice law and we have fully embraced it.”

David’s practice focuses on civil litigation and, in particular, personal injury, product liability, municipal liability, and professional negligence claims. David has been privileged to hold many titles external to his practice at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP, such as Former President of the Muskoka Law Association, Chair of the Ontario Bar Association Audit Committee, as well as Chair of the Paralegal Regulation Sub-Committee for the Ontario Bar Association.

All the named partners of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP have significant expertise in personal injury and insurance law matters. However, they each have specialized interests in the law that helps to foster diverse legal perspectives within the firm.

![Named Partners Jim Davidson, Paul Cahill and Chris Morrison](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/3da581ea-453c-459e-aa76-9e77469d0325/Jim%2C%20Paul%20and%20Chris-3797822.png/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280 "Named Partners Jim Davidson, Paul Cahill and Chris Morrison")Named Partners Jim Davidson, Paul Cahill and Chris Morrison[Jim Davidson](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson) has been certified as a Specialist in Civil Litigation by the Law Society of Ontario. He has also been selected by his peers for inclusion in Best Lawyers in Canada for his work in both personal injury and insurance law.

Jim’s practice is unique in that he is one of the few lawyers in his industry who represents both insurance companies and individual clients. He has significant experience in injury, fatality and disability claims. He is regularly consulted by insurance companies and other lawyers in determining coverage for uninsured and underinsured losses.

[Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill)‘s primary practice area is in patient-sided [medical malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/medical-malpractice-lawyers/) litigation. Paul’s advanced advocacy skills both inside and outside of the courtroom have led to him being recognized by the Law Society of Ontario as a Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

Paul has proven himself a fearless advocate by a number of successful trial outcomes over the years, including an [$11.5 million judgment](http://paulcahill.ca/blog/f/115-million-jury-verdict-against-negligent-doctor) for medical malpractice causing cerebral palsy against a negligent doctor as well as a recent judgment against a [negligent emergency room physician](https://paulcahill.ca/blog/f/paul-cahill-wins-medical-malpractice-trial-for-brampton-family) who caused the death of a 34 year-old mother of 4 young children.

[Chris Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison) has an impressive 25-year career specializing in appeals and civil litigation.

As an appellate lawyer Chris has argued multiple multi-million dollar civil appeals including the largest wrongful death award for general damages in Canadian history. His numerous appeals in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada have become part of the established Canadian jurisprudence in the fields of tort liability and insurance and has over 60 reported decisions.

Chris’ experience in the realm of insurance law extends to general liability, cyber, environmental, builders risk, wrap up liability and professional negligence claims. Chris has an impressive list of national institutional and international clients as well as counsel work for other lawyers.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is proud to have [Ron Strike](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike) of Bowmanville as Counsel to their firm.

![Ron Strike, Counsel](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/3da581ea-453c-459e-aa76-9e77469d0325/RS%20-%20Headshot.jpg/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280 "Ron Strike, Counsel")Ron Strike, CounselRon graduated from Queen’s University in 1978 with an Honours Degree in Psychology and from Queen’s University Law School in 1981. He was a member of the only Queen’s varsity men’s hockey team to win an Ontario championship.

Ron was called to the Ontario Bar in 1983 and was a senior partner with Strike Furlong Ford until February 1, 2016 when he merged his practice with the partners of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP where he is now counsel. Ron practices exclusively in the area of personal injury Law.

Ron has successfully litigated numerous catastrophic injury cases at local, national and international levels. He has represented [seriously injured clients](https://dcmlaw.ca/motor-vehicle-accident-lawyers/) for over 32 years and lectured extensively on personal injury issues.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is pleased to have two additional partners who work primarily in the field of insurance defence but also handle a wide variety of Plaintiff-side personal injury matters.

![Partners Joel Cormier and Scott Frew](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/3da581ea-453c-459e-aa76-9e77469d0325/Joel%20and%20Scott-6031359.png/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280 "Partners Joel Cormier and Scott Frew")Partners Joel Cormier and Scott Frew[Joel Cormier](https://dcmlaw.ca/joel-cormier)‘s areas of expertise includes subrogation, insurance defence, construction and [personal injury litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/occupiers-liability-lawyers/). Joel has considerable experience representing clients at trial and on appeal.

[Scott Frew](https://dcmlaw.ca/scott-frew) specializes in civil litigation with a focus on representing insurers in personal injury matters. His practice spans a wide-range of complex litigation, including extensive knowledge of the emerging area of cyberbullying law and social media claims, as well as expertise in [motor vehicle accidents](https://dcmlaw.ca/motor-vehicle-accident-lawyers/), product liability, [occupiers’ liability](https://dcmlaw.ca/occupiers-liability-lawyers/), property damage, and subrogation claims. Additionally, Scott has experience in providing insurance coverage opinions, and arguing cases before the Worker’s Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal. Besides his trial experience, Scott has also successfully argued complex motions in the Superior Court of Justice and appeared before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is fortunate to have a select group of talented associates who have developed significant experience and knowledge in the various practice areas of the firm.

![Associates Peter Reinitzer, Tiffany Usher and Hudson Chalmers](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/3da581ea-453c-459e-aa76-9e77469d0325/Peter%2C%20Tiffany%20and%20Hudson.png/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280 "Associates Peter Reinitzer, Tiffany Usher and Hudson Chalmers")Associates Peter Reinitzer, Tiffany Usher and Hudson Chalmers[Peter Reinitzer](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer) works primarily out of the firm’s Huntsville office for clients throughout the province. Peter has built a broad commercial and insurance-based practice with a focus on [personal injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/motor-vehicle-accident-lawyers/) and property loss.

A fearless advocate, Peter uses a combination of trial advocacy and creative alternative dispute resolution techniques to help his clients achieve their desired outcomes. Peter frequently attends at the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal where he has successfully litigated numerous trials and appeals. He has also successfully resolved countless disputes by way of mediated settlement.

[Tiffany Usher](https://dcmlaw.ca/tiffany-usher) represents both individual and insurance clients. Tiffany’s practice encompasses a broad range of civil litigation, including subrogation, coverage, tort/personal injury, occupiers’ liability, land use planning and development, property damage and product liability claims.

Tiffany’s experience working for parties on both sides of legal disputes has enabled her to develop a multifaceted, tactical perspective that she uses to the advantage of her clients. She is a profound negotiator and problem solver. She is willing to go the distance in the courtroom, but also recognizes the value of early resolution where necessary. Tiffany has appeared and/or drafted materials before every level of Court in Ontario as well as the Committee of Adjustment and Toronto Land Appeal Board.

[Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers)‘ practice includes personal injury and insurance litigation with a special interest in [medical malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/medical-malpractice-lawyers/). He takes pride in understanding both sides of legal disputes and applying that knowledge to the best advantage of his clients.

**Categories:** Firm News

---

### [How Slip and Fall Compensation Works in Ontario, and How to Maximize Your Claim](https://dcmlaw.ca/legal-insights-to-maximize-your-slip-and-fall-accident-claims-in-ontario/)

**Published:** February 2, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** A slip and fall can lead to a claim worth pursuing, but what you recover depends on your injuries, the evidence, and the steps you take early on. This guide explains how compensation is calculated in Ontario, from pain and suffering to income loss and future care, what raises or lowers the value of a claim, and the practical ways to maximize it.

**Content:**

If you have been injured in a slip and fall, one of the first questions on your mind is what your claim might be worth. The honest answer is that it depends: on how serious your injuries are, how they affect your life and your ability to work, how strong the evidence is, and on the steps you take early on. There is no fixed formula. This guide explains how compensation is calculated in an Ontario slip and fall claim and the practical things you can do to protect and maximize its value.

## First, a Word on Liability and Deadlines

Before value comes the question of fault. To recover anything, you generally have to show that an occupier failed to keep its premises reasonably safe under the *Occupiers’ Liability Act* and that this failure caused your injury. Slip and fall claims also carry strict, and often surprisingly short, deadlines: a 60-day written notice for falls caused by snow or ice, an even shorter notice period for municipal sidewalks, and a two-year limitation period to start a lawsuit. Those rules can end a claim before value is ever discussed, so they are worth understanding in full. We cover them in detail in our guide to [slip and fall injuries, your rights, and the deadlines that can bar your claim](https://dcmlaw.ca/dont-slip-up-on-your-rights-after-a-fall/). The rest of this article assumes liability can be established and focuses on compensation.

## What Compensation You Can Claim

Compensation in a slip and fall case is made up of several distinct categories, and the value of a claim comes from adding them together for your specific situation.

- **General damages for pain and suffering.** These compensate for the injury itself and its effect on your enjoyment of life. In Canada, non-pecuniary damages are capped, and the cap, which is adjusted for inflation, sits at roughly $470,000 and is reserved for the most catastrophic injuries. Most awards fall well below it. Importantly, and unlike a car accident claim, a slip and fall award for pain and suffering is not reduced by the statutory deductible that applies to motor vehicle cases.
- **Past and future income loss.** This covers wages you lost while recovering, and, where your injury affects your ability to work going forward, the loss of future earning capacity.
- **Cost of future care.** Treatment and rehabilitation such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and psychological care, along with medication, assistive devices, and, in serious cases, attendant care. In a catastrophic injury this is often the single largest part of the claim.
- **Out-of-pocket expenses.** The receipts you accumulate, from prescriptions and treatment to parking and mileage for medical appointments.
- **Loss of housekeeping and home maintenance capacity**, where your injury prevents you from doing tasks you used to handle yourself.
- **Family Law Act claims.** Your spouse, children, and parents may have their own claim for the loss of your care, guidance, and companionship, and for services they provide to you.

## What Affects the Value of Your Claim

Two people who fall on the same patch of ice can have very different claims. The main factors are:

- **The severity and permanence of your injury**, and how much it affects your work and daily life. A sprain that heals in weeks is not in the same range as a fracture or head injury with lasting effects.
- **The strength of liability.** How obvious was the hazard, and did the occupier have a reasonable system of inspection and maintenance that it failed to follow?
- **Causation.** The defence will look closely at any pre-existing condition and argue that it, rather than the fall, explains your symptoms.
- **The quality of your evidence**, which is often what separates a well-compensated claim from a disputed one.
- **Contributory negligence.** Occupiers routinely argue that you were partly to blame, for wearing unsuitable footwear, looking at your phone, being intoxicated, or ignoring an obvious hazard. If it succeeds, contributory negligence reduces your compensation in proportion to your share of fault, but it usually reduces the award rather than eliminating the claim.

## How to Maximize Your Claim

You cannot change how badly you were hurt, but you can strongly influence how well your losses are proven and therefore what you recover.

- **Get medical attention early and follow through.** A consistent treatment record is the backbone of the claim and the best answer to a defence that your injuries are minor or unrelated.
- **Preserve evidence quickly.** Photograph the hazard before it is cleaned or repaired, get an incident report from the occupier, collect witness names, and keep the footwear and clothing you were wearing. Weather records and the occupier’s own maintenance and salting logs are often decisive, and a lawyer can demand them before they disappear. Our companion guide sets out the [steps to take right after a slip and fall](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-steps-to-take-after-a-slip-and-fall-accident-in-ontario/).
- **Document your losses.** Keep receipts, track missed work, and keep a short diary of how the injury affects your daily activities.
- **Be careful with the insurer.** Do not give a recorded statement or accept an early settlement offer before you have had advice, because the first offer rarely reflects the full value of a claim.
- **Mind the deadlines**, and get legal advice early so nothing is lost to a technicality.

## How Slip and Fall Claims Resolve

Most slip and fall claims are resolved through negotiation or mediation rather than a trial, often after the medical picture has become clear enough to value the claim fairly. Timelines vary with the complexity of the injuries and the strength of the liability evidence. A claim built and documented properly from the start is both more likely to settle well and better positioned if it does have to go to court.

## How We Help

The personal injury team at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP acts for people injured in slip and falls across Ontario. We identify the responsible parties, move quickly to preserve the evidence that decides these cases, build the damages claim with the medical and economic evidence it needs, deal with the insurer on your behalf, and pursue full and fair compensation. We prepare every case as though it will go to trial.

## Frequently Asked Questions

**How much is my slip and fall claim worth?** There is no fixed formula. The value comes from your specific injuries and losses across the categories above, from pain and suffering to income loss and future care.

**Is there a limit on what I can recover?** Damages for pain and suffering are capped, at roughly $470,000 for the most catastrophic injuries, but there is no cap on income loss or the cost of care. And unlike a car accident claim, a slip and fall award is not reduced by the motor vehicle statutory deductible.

**What if I was partly at fault?** You may still have a claim. Being found partly responsible, for footwear or inattention for example, generally reduces your compensation in proportion to your share of the blame rather than barring the claim outright.

**How long do I have to bring a claim?** Slip and fall claims carry short notice deadlines and a two-year limitation period, which we explain in full in our guide to [your rights and the deadlines that can bar a slip and fall claim](https://dcmlaw.ca/dont-slip-up-on-your-rights-after-a-fall/). Get advice early.

## Talk to a Slip and Fall Lawyer

If you have been injured in a slip or fall, the value of your claim can turn on decisions made in the first days after it happens. Our [slip and fall lawyers in Toronto](https://dcmlaw.ca/slip-and-fall-lawyer-toronto/) can protect your deadlines, preserve the evidence, and build your claim toward the compensation you are owed. [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) for a consultation.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Damages, Occupiers' Liability, Personal Injury Settlement, Slip and Fall

---

### [Medical Malpractice in the Emergency Room: An Ontario Patient's Guide](https://dcmlaw.ca/when-seconds-count-protecting-yourself-from-medical-malpractice-in-emergency-rooms/)

**Published:** February 16, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Emergency departments save lives every day, but a missed diagnosis or a delay in urgent treatment can cause devastating harm. This guide explains when an emergency room error becomes medical malpractice in Ontario, what you have to prove, whether the hospital or the physician is responsible, the deadline to sue, and the steps to take if you suspect something went wrong.

**Content:**

Emergency departments are among the most demanding environments in medicine: high volumes, incomplete information, and patients who arrive already seriously ill or injured. Most of the care delivered in them is competent and often life-saving. But when a serious condition is missed, a critical test is not ordered, or urgent treatment is delayed, the consequences can be catastrophic and permanent. This guide explains when an emergency room delay or error crosses the line into medical malpractice in Ontario, what you would have to prove, who can be held responsible, and what to do if you suspect something went wrong.

## What Counts as Malpractice in the Emergency Room?

Not every bad outcome in an emergency room is malpractice. This is the single most important thing to understand. Emergency patients are frequently gravely ill, and even excellent care cannot save everyone or prevent every complication. A claim succeeds only where two separate things are shown: that the care fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner, and that the substandard care actually caused the harm. A poor result on its own, without a failure in the care that caused it, is not enough.

Both parts turn on expert evidence. The standard of care is not measured with hindsight or by the fact that the diagnosis turned out to be serious; another emergency physician or nurse has to be willing to say that what happened fell below what was reasonable in the circumstances that presented at the time.

## Why Timing Matters in the Emergency Room

Emergency care is time-sensitive, and delay is at the centre of many claims. You may have heard of the “golden hour,” the idea that a patient must receive definitive treatment within sixty minutes. It is a useful shorthand for the importance of speed, but it is not a rigid rule, and there is no magic point at which survival suddenly drops.

What is well established is that certain conditions have genuine treatment windows in which delay causes avoidable harm. In an ischemic stroke, clot-dissolving treatment only helps within a limited period, which is why clinicians say “time is brain.” In a heart attack, restoring blood flow quickly limits the damage to the heart muscle, hence “time is muscle.” Sepsis outcomes improve markedly with early antibiotics, and severe trauma with internal bleeding needs prompt surgical control. When an emergency department fails to recognize or act on one of these time-critical conditions, a survivable event can become a fatal or disabling one.

## Common Emergency Room Errors That Lead to Claims

The claims we see most often arise from a familiar set of failures:

- **Missed or delayed diagnosis**, the largest category, including heart attack, stroke, sepsis and other serious infections, meningitis, appendicitis, ectopic pregnancy, spinal cord compression such as cauda equina syndrome, blood clots such as pulmonary embolism, and significant fractures.
- **Triage errors.** Ontario emergency departments prioritize patients using the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS). When a genuinely urgent patient is under-triaged, they can wait far too long for care.
- **Failure to order or properly interpret tests and imaging.**
- **Medication errors.**
- **Premature discharge**, sending a patient home without an adequate work-up or clear instructions on when to return.
- **Failure to admit the patient or to consult the appropriate specialist.**

## Who Is Responsible: the Hospital or the Physician?

This is a point that surprises many patients. In Ontario, a hospital is generally responsible for its own employees, which usually includes the nurses, triage staff, and technicians, and it can be directly responsible for systemic failures such as understaffing, inadequate protocols, or a poorly run triage system. Emergency physicians, however, are typically independent contractors who hold privileges at the hospital rather than employees of it. That means a claim based on an emergency physician’s own negligence is usually brought against the physician, who is defended by the Canadian Medical Protective Association, rather than against the hospital.

In practice, more than one party is often involved, and part of the early work in any case is identifying exactly who is responsible for what.

## What You Would Have to Prove

To bring a successful claim you generally have to establish both elements described above. On the **standard of care**, an independent expert in the same field must be prepared to say that the care fell below what was acceptable, judged on what a reasonable practitioner would have done at the time. On **causation**, you have to show that the substandard care caused your injury, meaning that with proper care the outcome would probably have been better.

Causation is frequently the hardest hurdle in emergency room cases precisely because the patient was already unwell when they arrived. The defence will often argue that the harm would have happened anyway. Meeting that argument requires careful expert evidence about what timely, competent care would realistically have changed.

## The Deadline to Sue

In Ontario, you generally have two years to start a lawsuit under the *Limitations Act, 2002*, but the clock does not necessarily run from the date of the emergency room visit. It runs from when you knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that you were injured and that the injury was likely caused by substandard care, which in medicine can take time to become clear. For children, the two-year period does not begin until they turn 18, which matters where a child was harmed. Because the timing can be complicated, it is best to get advice early rather than risk losing a claim to a missed deadline.

## What to Do If You Suspect Emergency Room Malpractice

1. **Request your complete records**, including the emergency department chart, triage and nursing notes, imaging, laboratory results, and any ambulance records.
2. **Keep getting the care you need**, and keep your own dated notes and a timeline of what happened while it is fresh.
3. **Do not rely on your own assessment of the medicine.** A lawyer will have the records reviewed by an appropriate medical expert to assess whether the care was substandard and whether it caused the harm.
4. **Get legal advice promptly** to protect your limitation period.

It is also worth being clear about what a lawsuit can and cannot do. A civil claim is about financial compensation. If your goal is accountability or preventing a repeat, the route is a complaint to the regulator: see our guide on [how to make a complaint against a physician to the CPSO](https://dcmlaw.ca/how-to-make-a-complaint-against-a-physician-to-the-college-of-physicians-and-surgeons-of-ontario-cpso/). For a fuller picture of what a malpractice claim involves, including cost and value, our article on [whether you can sue for medical malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/can-i-sue-for-medical-malpractice/) walks through the practical realities.

## How We Help

The medical malpractice group at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP acts for patients and families across Ontario who have been seriously harmed by emergency room delays and errors. We obtain and review the records with qualified experts, identify the hospital, physicians, and other parties who may be responsible, and pursue fair compensation for the injury and its lasting effects. Most cases resolve through negotiation, but we prepare each one as though it will go to trial.

If you or a family member has been harmed by a delay or error in an emergency room, contact our [medical malpractice lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/medical-malpractice-lawyers/) for an honest assessment of your case. [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) to arrange a consultation.

**Categories:** Medical Malpractice

**Tags:** Causation, Delayed Diagnosis, Emergency Room, Medical Malpractice, Standard of Care

---

### [The Importance of Keeping Civil Juries in Ontario](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-importance-of-keeping-civil-juries-in-ontario/)

**Published:** February 25, 2024
**Author:** Joel Cormier

**Excerpt:** Calls to abolish Ontario's civil juries resurface from time to time, usually on the argument that they are slow, costly, or biased. This article makes the case for keeping them, explaining how juries check judicial bias, bring public participation and diversity to the justice system, and why the common arguments against them do not hold up.

**Content:**

Calls to eliminate civil juries have quieted down recently. In-person jury trials have resumed. However, we have likely not seen the last of efforts to abolish civil juries. These efforts arise at various times, for various reasons, and from various quarters in the legal profession and elsewhere.

Some argue that jury trials are unduly long and expensive. Others question the ability of juries to hear complex cases. Still others argue that juries are biased. Not only are these arguments are largely unfounded, but the civil jury system offers many benefits for Ontario’s justice system, as will be discussed below.

## Juries mitigate the impact of bias on judicial decision making

Human beings are fallible, and come with their own biases, prejudices and preconceptions. This maxim applies equally to everyone, including judges and jurors. Although both judges and jurors are duty bound to put such biases aside and remain impartial in their decision-making, there is no guarantee they will not succumb to bias, whether consciously or unconsciously, with the result that there is always risk that the trier of fact will bring personal prejudices to the judicial decision-making process.

A judge sitting alone is left unchecked in bringing his or her bias to the decision-making process. While I am confident that most of our judiciary strive to avoid this, even the most conscientious judge may bring unconscious bias to the process. The only limitation to this form of bias is the ability to craft a decision that appears fair and that will withstand the scrutiny of appeal.

Juries, however, have an inherent check against such risk, since they are made up of a group of people rather than one individual. This check arises from the simple fact that, as a group (and often a diverse group), the members of a jury must confront each other with their views of the case before them, and they must decide as a group, with at least 5 out of 6 jurors agreeing on each question of fact. Thus individual biases and prejudices will rarely remain unchallenged, as jurors must engage in a battle of perspectives and compromises in the jury room before they can come to a consensus.

## Juries foster public participation in the judicial system

Civil juries present the only opportunity for ordinary citizens to participate directly in judicial decision-making. Such participation is essential for two reasons. One, it instills a sense of civic engagement and civic pride among the public. While many may bemoan the prospect of being called for jury duty and the inconveniences (and even hardship) that may be associated with serving on a jury, my experience with juries has taught me that the citizens who ultimately end up on a jury take their task very seriously once they are empanelled. Far from observing discontent among empanelled jurors, they tend to engage themselves wholeheartedly in the process.

Two, such public participation in the judicial system is necessary as it is the only means by which community values are represented in judicial decisions. We must be careful that the decisions of our courts do not depart too drastically from the values of our communities, which could lead to a general disconnect between our courts and the communities they purport to serve. This concern is no less relevant in the civil context as it is in the criminal context. By inviting 6 representative members of the community to decide civil cases, we ensure a relative connection and consistency between our courts and the conscience of the community, which in turn instills public trust in our courts.

## Juries bring diversity to the justice system

Civil juries ensure a level of diversity in judicial decision-making that is not possible when a case is decided by one judge sitting alone. As a group, rather than a solitary individual, a jury brings an inherent diversity to our courtrooms. Civil juries bring six perspectives to bear on a case rather than one.

Furthermore, juries are constituted of people from all walks of life with varied educational backgrounds, varied professional backgrounds, varied income levels, and a diversity of races and ages. Without juries, our civil cases would be left to be decided by judges, who are universally high-income, civil servants aged 35 and up with the same educational and professional background. Thus civil juries bring a diversity of perspective to the judicial decision-making process in Ontario that would otherwise be absent.

## Jurors have no relationship with counsel

Members of a civil jury panel who are acquainted with counsel are immediately excluded from serving as jurors. This is due to the risk that the impartiality of a trier of fact may be compromised if he or she has a relationship with counsel. However, given that judges are drawn from the same profession as counsel, no such exclusion would be practicable if applied to judges, since relationships are all to common between the bar and the bench. Thus the risk of compromised impartiality is permitted to exist in a civil trial before a judge alone. This is not to say that judges cannot put their relationship with lawyers aside, but jurors, on the other hand, having no prior experiences with counsel, are better positioned to remain impartial.

## Eliminating civil juries will lead to an increase in appellate litigation

Jury verdicts are very difficult to successfully appeal. The Court of Appeal gives greater deference to a jury verdict than a decision made by a judge, requiring that the jury verdict be “perverse.” The result is that the vast majority of jury verdicts are not appealed.

The same cannot be said of decisions rendered by judges, where the success rate on appeal is considerably higher, thus increasing the likelihood of appeal of a judge-alone decision. Civil juries reduce the risk of a swell of appeals and costly appellate litigation, as parties who are unsuccessful at trial will be more inclined to appeal their decision of a judge-alone decision than a jury decision, given the greater odds of success. Far from saving court time and resources, eliminating juries might only transfer the burden from trial courts to the Court of Appeal.

## The most frequently cited reasons for eliminating juries are unfounded

Many critics of civil juries complain that juries have difficulty comprehending complex medical evidence. Aside from there being no evidence to support this assertion, the simple answer to this criticism is that a judge is no more a medical expert than a juror. There is no reason to believe that a judge, whose education and background is in law, is any more qualified in understanding complex medical evidence (or any complex non-legal facts for that matter) than an electrician, nurse or salesman who may be serving on a jury.

In fact, a jury has an advantage in understanding complex evidence compared with a judge sitting alone. Again, this stems from the fact that a jury is a group. It is trite, but no less true, that six brains are better than one. Personally, I am continually impressed by the ability of juries to arrive at a just verdict despite being presented with complex evidence.

Another common criticism of civil jury trials is that they consume excessive judicial resources due to their length. It is true that jury trials tend to run longer than those without a jury. However, much of this could be avoided by a more economical presentation of the evidence, something that both counsel and the judiciary can work toward.

Given the importance of civil juries and the advantages they bring to our judicial system, far from being a burden to our civil justice system, juries are a shining light and should remain an integral part of our civil litigation process.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Civil Litigation, Juries, Rules of Civil Procedure

---

### [Taking Advantage of Simplified Procedure in MVA Concussion Claims](https://dcmlaw.ca/taking-advantage-of-simplified-procedure-in-mva-concussion-claims/)

**Published:** March 9, 2024
**Author:** Hudson Chalmers

**Excerpt:** For many concussion victims, issuing a motor vehicle claim under the Simplified Procedure of Rule 76 offers real advantages. This article explains how the 2019 changes removed jury trials, capped adverse costs, and raised the damages limit, and why that framework often suits the invisible injuries that make concussion cases so hard to prove.

**Content:**

When commencing a civil personal injury action, one of the first decisions plaintiffs need to make with their lawyer is whether to issue a Statement of Claim under Ordinary Procedure or under Simplified Procedure, as outlined by [Rule 76](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900194#BK719) of the *Rules of Civil Procedure*. For most motor vehicle concussion victims, it may be beneficial to issue under Simplified Procedure.

Rule 76 was amended in 2019 in O. Reg. 344/19 under the *Courts of Justice Act*. The most significant amendments include:

1. Actions can no longer be tried with a Jury;
2. A successful party is limited to an award of $50,000.00 for costs and $25,000.00 in disbursements, exclusive of HST; and
3. The amount of damages that can be claimed increased from $100,000.00 to $200,000.00. These changes help balance the landscape between motor vehicle concussion victims and their tortfeasors.

## No Jury Trials

Post-concussive symptoms including headaches, tinnitus, and cognitive and psychological changes are usually not recognizable from the outside. While there may be an overwhelming amount of medical evidence substantiating a plaintiff’s concussion injury and post-concussive symptoms, it can be challenging to convince a jury of these invisible injuries, when the plaintiff is seen for the first time at trial.

Even if a jury does award a substantial amount in non-pecuniary damages for a motor vehicle concussion victim, jurors are not advised of the applicability of statutory deductibles for non-pecuniary damages under the *Insurance Act*, which increase every year.

As of 2024, the statutory deductible on non-pecuniary damages is $46,053.20, and applies to non-pecuniary damages awards of less than $153,509.39. Jurors may be convinced of a plaintiff’s concussion injury, and award them $45,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages as compensation. Under this scenario, jurors may think they are appropriately compensating the plaintiff for their injuries, when really, the plaintiff’s award for non-pecuniary damages would be completely wiped out by the statutory deducible.

When assessing the non-pecuniary damages of a concussion victim under Simplified Procedure, a judge will look at what has been awarded in past concussion injuries to get a range of potential damages awards. Based on past decisions, after accounting for inflation, the range of damages for a concussion injury may range between $86,000.00 to $114,000.00, which after the statutory deducible is $40,000.00 to $68,000.00, depending on the severity of the symptoms. Non-pecuniary damages awards for motor vehicle concussion victims may generally be higher, and have less variance, when assessed by a judge-alone, rather than by a jury, due to the invisible nature of the symptoms and the applicability of past judicial decisions.

## Limit on Adverse Costs Awards

The limit to adverse costs and disbursements awards against the unsuccessful litigant under Simplified Procedure provides a level of certainty to a plaintiff when gearing up for an inherently uncertain trial. In most personal injury claims, the plaintiff has the option of getting adverse costs insurance, which usually has a policy limit of at least $100,000.00. With a cap on adverse costs and disbursements to $50,000.00 in costs and $25,000.00 in disbursements plus HST, a plaintiff will have the piece of mind going into a trial that even if they are completely unsuccessful, they will be fully indemnified for any adverse costs award against them. At the same time, these caps on adverse costs may motivate a defendant to settle a claim, because the defendant will know that even if successful at trial, their legal costs in going to trial will significantly exceed the adverse costs award that they are able to receive.

## Increase on Limit of Damages

Although there are benefits to an injured plaintiff to proceed under Simplified Procedure, there would be little incentive to do so if their expected damages exceed the limits permitted under Simplified Procedure. If the previous cap of $100,000.00 in damages under Simplified Procedure applied, a motor vehicle concussion victim would have to consider what they are potentially sacrificing in terms of quantum of damages when deciding on their procedure.

Given the expected range of non-pecuniary damages for concussions, and other limitations on damages that apply to motor vehicle accident victims under the *Insurance Act*, many motor vehicle concussion victims will have damages under $200,000.00. With the increase in limit of damages from $100,000.00 to $200,000.00, there is little to no prejudice to most motor vehicle concussion victims in proceeding under Simplified Procedure.

The above changes have the effect of balancing the landscape between plaintiff and defendant in motor vehicle accident claims, and potentially impact the risk-assessment that both parties undergo when deciding to settle claims. Additionally, Simplified Procedure provides for a streamlined litigation process, which provides a benefit to all parties involved.

Under Simplified Procedure, parties are required to discuss documentary disclosure and potential settlement within 60 days of the filing of the first Statement of Defence. Examinations for Discovery are also limited to a maximum of three hours per party, whereas under Ordinary Procedure, Examinations for Discovery are limited to seven hours. If an action under Simplified Procedure goes to trial, the trials are generally more efficient than under Ordinary Procedure, as trials are limited to 5 days, with Evidence-in-Chief of all witnesses submitted by way of affidavit, making the most of court and judicial resources.

When dealing with motor vehicle concussion injuries, where the damages are unlikely to exceed $200,000.00, proceeding under Simplified Procedure may be beneficial to plaintiffs, as it balances the landscape of the litigation, and provides for more timely justice. Of course, decisions on which procedure to commence a claim under must be decided on a case-by-case basis with the benefit of legal advice from an [experienced personal injury lawyer](https://dcmlaw.ca/motor-vehicle-accident-lawyers/).

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Concussion, Juries, Motor Vehicle Accident, Rules of Civil Procedure, Simplified Procedure

---

### [Long-Term Disability Benefits in Ontario: A Complete Guide](https://dcmlaw.ca/securing-your-future-with-ltd-benefits/)

**Published:** March 10, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Long-term disability benefits replace part of your income when illness or injury keeps you from working, but the rules catch people off guard. This guide explains how LTD works in Ontario: what it pays, the own occupation to any occupation switch, who qualifies, how to apply, the rights you have, and what to do if your claim is denied.

**Content:**

A serious illness or injury that keeps you from working is hard enough without the worry of how you will pay for anything. Long-term disability benefits exist to take some of that weight off, replacing part of your income while you are unable to work. But the rules are not always obvious. Where the coverage comes from, how long it lasts, what you have to prove, and what happens if a claim is refused all trip people up. This guide explains how long-term disability benefits work in Ontario, who qualifies, how to apply, and the rights you have along the way.

## What Are Long-Term Disability Benefits?

Long-term disability (LTD) insurance replaces a portion of your income, often 60% to 70%, when a medical condition prevents you from working for an extended period. Coverage usually comes in one of two ways: through a group plan tied to your employment, or through an individual policy you bought yourself. LTD benefits typically begin only after any short-term disability coverage or employment insurance sickness benefits have run out, once a waiting period set by the policy has passed.

One detail that surprises many people is how the benefits are taxed. If you paid the premiums yourself, your benefits are generally tax-free. If your employer paid them, the benefits are usually taxable as income. It is worth knowing which applies to you, because it affects how much you actually keep.

## How Long Benefits Last: Own Occupation and Any Occupation

The single most important feature of most LTD policies is the change in the definition of disability partway through the claim. For roughly the first 24 months, you usually qualify if you cannot perform the essential duties of your **own occupation**, the job you held when you became disabled. After that, the test typically shifts to **any occupation**, meaning you must show you cannot do any job for which you are reasonably suited by your education, training, and experience.

This changeover matters because it is the point at which many claims are terminated, even when the person’s medical condition has not improved. A claim that was approved without difficulty for two years can suddenly be cut off when the insurer applies the stricter test. Understanding which definition applies to you at any given time is central to knowing where you stand.

## Who Qualifies for LTD Benefits

Eligibility is defined by the wording of your specific policy, but a few requirements are common to most. You generally need to have been enrolled in the plan or insured under the policy, to have served the waiting period, and to provide medical evidence that your condition prevents you from working under whichever definition of disability currently applies. That medical evidence is the heart of the claim. Insurers look for documented functional limitations, meaning what you can and cannot do and for how long, rather than a diagnosis on its own.

Many group policies also require you to apply for other benefits you may be entitled to, most commonly Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. If CPP disability is approved, it usually reduces your LTD payment rather than adding to it, because most policies coordinate the two.

## How to Apply for LTD Benefits

A typical LTD application has three parts: a statement from you describing your condition and how it affects your work, a statement from your employer about your job and your absence in the case of a group plan, and a statement from your treating physician setting out your diagnosis, restrictions, and prognosis. The claim is assessed after the waiting period, which often lines up with the end of short-term disability coverage.

The most common weakness in an application is medical evidence that describes the diagnosis but not the functional limitations. It helps to make sure your treating providers document the specific restrictions that prevent you from doing your job, and to keep copies of everything you submit. Watch the deadlines in your policy as well, since a proof-of-claim or notice requirement can be surprisingly short.

## Your Rights as a Claimant

Your rights come from both your policy and the law. In Ontario, an insurer owes its policyholders a duty of good faith in how it handles a claim, which means it cannot deny or delay benefits arbitrarily or ignore the evidence you provide. You are entitled to a clear explanation of any decision, to appeal a denial through the insurer’s internal process, and to seek legal advice and representation if a dispute arises. Where an insurer handles a claim in bad faith, a court can award additional damages beyond the benefits themselves.

## Why Claims Get Denied

Even strong claims are refused, and knowing the common reasons helps you avoid the pitfalls. Denials often come down to medical evidence the insurer considers insufficient or focused on diagnosis rather than function, the change from the own-occupation to the any-occupation test, an insurer’s medical examination that conflicts with your treating doctors, surveillance or social media taken out of context, policy exclusions or pre-existing-condition clauses, missed deadlines, or the effect of offsetting benefits such as CPP disability.

## What to Do If Your Claim Is Denied

A denial is not the end of the road, but it does start a clock. In Ontario, you generally have a limited time to take legal action after a denial, and relying only on the insurer’s internal appeal can be a costly mistake, because it does not stop that deadline from running. If your benefits have been denied or cut off, the most important step is to get advice early. Our companion guide explains this in detail: see [how to fight back and get denied long-term disability benefits reinstated](https://dcmlaw.ca/reinstating-long-term-disability-benefits-a-comprehensive-guide/).

## How We Help

Our team acts for people whose long-term disability benefits have been denied, terminated, or put at risk. We review your policy and the insurer’s decision, explain your options in plain terms, deal with the insurer on your behalf, and protect the deadlines that matter, whether the path forward is a negotiated resolution or a lawsuit. You can read more about this side of our practice on our [long-term disability page](https://dcmlaw.ca/long-term-disability-insurance-lawyers/) and our [insurance law page](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/).

## Frequently Asked Questions

**How much does long-term disability pay?** Most policies replace roughly 60% to 70% of your pre-disability income, though the exact figure depends on your plan.

**How long do LTD benefits last?** That depends on your policy, but benefits often continue to a set retirement age as long as you remain disabled under the applicable definition. In practice, the own-occupation to any-occupation change at around 24 months is where many claims are tested.

**Are LTD benefits taxable?** Generally they are tax-free if you paid the premiums yourself, and taxable if your employer paid them.

**Will CPP disability affect my LTD benefits?** Usually yes. Most policies require you to apply for CPP disability, and an approval typically offsets your LTD payment rather than increasing your total.

**What happens if my claim is denied?** You have options, including an appeal or a lawsuit, but strict deadlines apply. Do not assume an internal appeal protects your right to sue, and get legal advice promptly.

## Talk to a Long-Term Disability Lawyer

If you are living with a long-term disability, or your benefits have been denied or cut off, you do not have to navigate the insurance system alone. [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) for a consultation and an honest assessment of your claim and your options.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Long-Term Disability

---

### [What to Do After a Car Accident in Ontario: 7 Key Steps](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-car-accidents-in-ontario/)

**Published:** March 24, 2024
**Author:** Ron Strike

**Excerpt:** A car accident is stressful, and what you do at the scene and in the days afterward can affect both your health and any claim. This guide walks through seven steps, from getting to safety and gathering evidence to Ontario's updated police-reporting rule, accident benefits, and when to call a lawyer, with notes for injured drivers across the Durham region.

**Content:**

A car accident is stressful and disorienting, and most people are not thinking clearly in the moments right after a crash. Yet the steps you take at the scene and in the days that follow can protect both your health and any claim you may have. Here are seven steps to take if you are involved in a car accident in Ontario, with a few notes for drivers here in the Durham region, where our Bowmanville office helps injured people every day.

## 1. Get to Safety

If it is safe to do so and your vehicle is drivable, pull to the side of the road to keep traffic moving, then turn off your engine. If your vehicle is not drivable or it is not safe to move, leave your hazard lights on and stay where you are until help arrives. Check on anyone else involved, and if someone is injured, do not move them. Call 911 right away if there are any injuries.

## 2. Gather Evidence at the Scene

If you are physically able, collect as much information as you can before you leave, because the scene changes quickly and memory fades. Take photos and video of the vehicles, their positions, the damage, and the road, weather, and lighting conditions. Exchange names, phone numbers, licence plate numbers, and insurance details with every driver involved, and record the same contact details for any passengers and witnesses. If an officer attends, note their name and badge number and ask how to obtain the accident report. If a vehicle is towed, write down the towing company’s details. A short checklist on your phone is useful, because many people are in shock and forget these steps.

## 3. Report the Accident to the Police

You must call the police when anyone is injured or killed, when the combined damage appears to exceed $5,000, when public, municipal, or highway property is damaged, when a criminal element is involved such as suspected impaired driving, or when a pedestrian or cyclist is struck. If there is any injury, report to the police regardless of the dollar amount of damage.

It is worth knowing that this dollar threshold changed recently. As of January 1, 2025, the property-damage figure that triggers mandatory police reporting rose from $2,000 to $5,000, the first increase in more than three decades. If your collision is reportable but the police do not attend the scene, you are generally required to report it in person at a Collision Reporting Centre, usually within 24 hours. In the Durham region, that is the Durham Regional Police Collision Reporting Centre in Whitby. Failing to report a reportable collision is an offence under the *Highway Traffic Act*, carrying a fine and demerit points, and leaving the scene can be a criminal matter.

## 4. Get Medical Attention and Document Your Injuries

See a health practitioner even if your injuries seem minor, whether that is your family doctor, a hospital, a physiotherapist, or a psychologist. Doing so puts your injuries on the record in writing. Keep copies of your medical records, the names of every practitioner you see, and receipts for any accident-related expense such as medication. Continue with your follow-up appointments, since a consistent treatment history both supports your recovery and shows the insurer you are taking steps to get better. Tell your practitioners about every symptom, no matter how small. Anything you leave out will not appear in your records, and it becomes much harder later to prove that the injury came from the accident. Doctors do not always write down everything you say, so it helps to bring a short written list of your complaints.

## 5. Watch What You Say, and Do Not Accept Money at the Scene

Emotions run high after a crash, but what you say can be used against you later. Do not admit fault, do not argue with the other driver, and try to stay calm and focused on the steps above. If another party offers you cash on the spot to settle the matter, do not accept it before you have spoken to a lawyer. A quick payment at the roadside is almost always far less than you would be entitled to, and accepting it can compromise your claim.

## 6. Report the Accident to Your Insurer and Apply for Accident Benefits

You have seven days from the accident to notify your insurance company. An adjuster will be assigned and will send you an Application for Accident Benefits, known as the OCF-1, which you must submit within 30 days of receiving it. These accident benefits are part of Ontario’s no-fault system, which means you can claim them through your own insurer even if you caused the crash.

One important change is now in effect. As of July 1, 2026, medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits remain mandatory and are the core of the coverage, with your auto insurer acting as the first payor for medical and rehabilitation costs. Several other benefits, however, became optional and now depend on the coverage your policy actually includes. Because of this, it is worth confirming what your own policy provides. For a fuller explanation of the system and the deadlines, see our guide on [applying for accident benefits after a car accident in Ontario](https://dcmlaw.ca/applying-for-accident-benefits-after-a-car-accident-in-ontario/).

## 7. Talk to a Personal Injury Lawyer

There are broadly two ways an injured person is compensated after a crash, and a lawyer can help you pursue both. The first is the no-fault accident benefits above, available regardless of who was at fault. The second, if you were not at fault, is a tort claim against the at-fault driver for losses your benefits do not cover, such as pain and suffering and income loss beyond the benefit limits. A two-year limitation period generally applies to that claim, and Ontario also applies a statutory deductible to most car-accident pain-and-suffering awards (roughly $48,000 in 2026) unless the award is large enough to clear the set threshold.

A lawyer can help you navigate the insurance and healthcare systems, make sure your rehabilitation is properly funded, and protect your right to fair compensation. If you would like a sense of the road ahead, our explainer on [how long a personal injury claim takes](https://dcmlaw.ca/how-long-does-a-personal-injury-lawsuit-take-to-settle/) walks through the process.

## Injured in a Crash in the Durham Region?

If you or a family member has been seriously injured in a car accident, the steps above will help you protect your health and your claim, but you do not have to manage the legal side alone. From our Bowmanville office, [Ron Strike](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike/) and our [personal injury team](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) act for injured people across the Durham region, including Oshawa, Whitby, Ajax, Pickering, Clarington, Uxbridge, Scugog, and Brock, and throughout Ontario. [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) for a free consultation and an honest assessment of your options.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Accident Benefits, Motor Vehicle Accident

---

### [A Lawyer's Guide to Statutory Third Parties](https://dcmlaw.ca/a-lawyers-guide-to-statutory-third-parties/)

**Published:** April 7, 2024
**Author:** Jim Davidson

**Excerpt:** Statutory third parties are one of the trickier corners of Ontario automobile insurance litigation. This practitioner's guide explains s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act: when an insurer can add itself as a statutory third party after denying coverage, how other parties can challenge that step, and the potential for prejudice to the at-fault defendant.

**Content:**

## Introduction

The law surrounding statutory third parties gives rise to many uncertainties in the field of automobile insurance litigation. The following article intends to provide a simple and practical guide to navigate the issues that commonly arise in the statutory third party context. This includes when an insurer is entitled to an order adding itself as a statutory third party and what rights and remedies are available to other parties affected by such an order.

## What Is A Statutory Third Party

The legislature decided many years ago that given the prevalence of automobiles in society and their potential to cause serious injury, it was necessary to guarantee the availability of compensation to those injured in automobile accidents. Automobile insurance was made mandatory with minimum liability limits set at $200,000. The legislature went further and guaranteed the availability of these minimum limits even if the insurer denied coverage to its insured based on a breach of the policy. To deal with this latter situation, the legislature created a mechanism that balanced the rights of both accident victims and insurers through the creation of the statutory third party.

In this regard statutory third parties are a unique creature of s. 258(14) of the Ontario *Insurance Act*. This section essentially permits an insurer to participate in the defence of a plaintiff’s action against its insured even though it has denied coverage to its insured. The purpose being to allow the insurer to take steps to protect its ongoing $200,000 exposure.

This was explained by Associate Justice Graham in his decision in [*Gordon v. Pendleton* (2007), 87 O.R. (3d) 706](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2007/2007canlii39886/2007canlii39886.html), at paragraph 18:

*…\[Section 258\] as a whole creates liability upon a motor vehicle liability insurer to a plaintiff who recovers a judgment against its insured… to the extent of Ontario’s minimum motor vehicle liability insurance limits of $200,000 notwithstanding any act or default of the insured \[breach of policy\]…Section 258(14) provides a mechanism for an insurer facing the exposure created by the balance of s. 258 to participate in and defend the action without forcing it to defend an insured to whom it is denying coverage and from whom it may ultimately attempt to recover money that it had to pay to a plaintiff notwithstanding the insured’s breach*

Section 258(14) of the *Insurance Act* reads as follows:

*Where an insurer denies liability under a contract evidenced by a motor vehicle liability policy, it shall, upon application to the court, be made a third party in any action to which the insured is a party and in which a claim is made against the insured by any party to the action in which it is or might be asserted that indemnity is provided by the contract, whether or not the insured enters an appearance or defence in the action. \[emphasis added\]*

The two key takeaways in relation to the wording of this section are:

1. The only condition precedent to the insurer being added as a statutory third party under s. 258(14) is that the insurer deny liability under the policy (See *Gordon v. Pendleton* and [*Deonanan v. Kwan*, 2021 ONSC 266](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc266/2021onsc266.html));
2. The use of the word “shall” makes such an order mandatory and does not confer discretion upon the court other than to grant the statutory third party order once a denial of coverage has been made (See *Gordon v. Pendleton*).

## The Denial Of Coverage And Common Breaches Of The Automobile Policy

Common and straight forward breaches of the automobile policy that would permit an insurer to deny coverage include the following contraventions of Statutory Condition 4 (Authority to Drive):

- Driving with a suspended licence;
- Driving with a blood alcohol level of more than zero with a G2 licence; and
- Driving alone with a G1 licence.

Other common, but often less straightforward, breaches include the following:

- Failure to advise of a “material change in risk” under *Statutory Condition* 1 of the policy;
- Failure to notify your insurer in relation to an accident claim under *Statutory Condition*5(1) of the policy; and
- Failure to co-operate with your insurer in relation to an accident claim under *Statutory Condition* 5(3) of the policy.

As discussed above, once an insurer denies coverage to its insured for a breach of the policy, it can then make a motion to the court to have itself added as a statutory third party to reduce its exposure to $200,000 accordingly.

## Who Is Affected By An Insurer Adding Itself As A Statutory Third Party

The reduction of the available insurance limits to $200,000 may impact other parties to the litigation including:

- The insured who no longer has any insurance coverage and is now exposed to personal liability from both other parties and its own insurer;
- A plaintiff who’s claim may exceed $200,000;
- The plaintiff’s Family Protection Endorsement OPCF44R insurer who may now be pursued by the plaintiff to make up any shortfall above the $2000,000 limits;
- Other defendants exposed under the joint and several liability provisions of the *Negligence Act.*

Given the number of other parties who may be impacted by an insurer adding itself as a statutory third party, the issue arises as to who is permitted to question the insurer’s denial of coverage and what is the appropriate method to do so.

## Questioning the Denial of Coverage for Breach of Policy

### At the Motion Stage

It is important to distinguish between questioning or challenging an insurer’s denial of coverage and opposing the statutory third party motion.

In this regard, the law is clear that the court must grant an order adding an insurer as a statutory third party so long as the insurer provides evidence that it has denied coverage to its insured. Once this has been established, there does not appear to be any basis for which any party can oppose the insurer’s motion. (See *Gordon v. Pendleton* and *Deonanan v. Kwan*)

Equally important, the insurer does not need to provide particulars or reasons for its denial of coverage at the motion stage. The statutory third party order is mandatory provided the court is satisfied that the insurer has denied coverage. This is set out clearly at paragraph 16 of *Gordon v. Pendleton*, wherein Associate Justice Graham states the following:

*The wording of the section places no obligation upon the insurer to provide reasons for the denial, and the use of the word “shall” as emphasized in the previous paragraph requires the insurer be made a third party based solely on the denial of coverage. The language is unambiguously mandatory and does not confer any discretion upon the court. Accordingly, an insurer on a motion under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act is not obliged to disclose the reason for its denial of coverage. \[emphasis added\]*

### During the the Action

Once an insurer has been added as a statutory third party, it has all the same rights and obligations as other parties to the litigation. This includes production of documents and oral discovery (see [*Prentzas v. Rivera* 2015 ONSC 5867](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc5867/2015onsc5867.html) para 38). Accordingly, the statutory third party can be served with a Notice of Examination just like any other party. The real question is whether it can be compelled to answer questions and produce documents relating to its denial of coverage position.

### By the Insured

An insured can question and, indeed, challenge its own insurer’s denial of coverage. Historically, the courts preferred that this be done in a separate “coverage” proceeding. (See *Gordon v. Pendleton* and *Deonanan v. Kwan*, [*Roach v. Policandriotis*, 2008 CarswellOnt 411](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2008/2008canlii2753/2008canlii2753.html) and [*Ahmed v. Maharaj*, 2010 ONSC 5281](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc5281/2010onsc5281.html)).

However, it is also permissible for the insured to submit a defence and then add their own insurer as an ordinary procedural third party under Rule 29.01, in order to seek indemnity for the plaintiff’s claims (see paragraph 26 of [*Lica v. Dhaliwal* 2015 ONSC 3888](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc3888/2015onsc3888.html)).

### By the Plaintiff or OPCF44R Insurer

Traditionally, the only recourse for a plaintiff or other party who wanted to question or challenge the insurer’s off coverage position was to obtain a judgment against the at fault insured and then commence an application against that party’s insurer under s. 258(1) of the *Insurance Act* in a subsequent proceeding (See [*Ahmed v. Maharaj* 2010 ONSC 5281](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc5281/2010onsc5281.html)). The plaintiff or OPCF44R insurer had no direct right to question or challenge the statutory third party in the primary action because the denial of coverage was a contract dispute between the at fault insured and its insurer only. There was simply no privity of contract between the plaintiff or the OPCF44R insurer and the statutory third party insurer.

However, the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in [*Maccaroni v. Kelly* 2011 ONCA 411](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca411/2011onca411.html) followed in [*Lica v. Dhaliwal* 2015 ONSC 3888](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc3888/2015onsc3888.html) and [*Prentzas v. Rivera* 2015 ONSC 5867](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc5867/2015onsc5867.html) has dramatically altered this long established view.

It is important to note that these cases involve lawsuits where the plaintiff has claimed against its own OPCF44R insurer in response to the at fault driver’s insurer adding itself as a statutory third party. These cases do not appear to apply to lawsuits in which the plaintiff has not sued its own OPCF44R insurer (see *Antony v. Bakthaavachalu* 2017 ONSC 4943). This is an important distinction that will be discussed in more detail below.

In this regard, once the plaintiff makes a claim against its own OPCF44R insurer it must still prove its entitlement under the OPCF44R Endorsement. One of the ways a plaintiff can do so is by establishing that the available insurance limits of the at fault defendant have been “reduced by operation of law” pursuant to s. 1.8 of the OPCF44R Endorsement which specifically contemplates the statutory third party situation.

The question before the court in *Maccaroni* was whether by simply denying coverage and adding itself as a statutory third party, had the insurer reduced its insurance limits “by operation of law” or is more required of the statutory third party to justify its denial of coverage.

The Court of Appeal held that more is required of the statutory third party to justify its denial of coverage and that plaintiff had the right to obtain full particulars of the denial of coverage and policy breach from the statutory third party. This was necessary for the plaintiff to establish its entitlement to coverage under its OPCF44R claim by demonstrating that the available limits of insurance have indeed been properly reduced.

The Court of Appeal stated the following in this regard:

*19. The issue here is really whether the \[statutory third party’s\] limits are ‘reduced by operation of law” merely on its say so…In other words, is it enough to allege breach of policy conditions to reduce the liability limits of coverage available to pay third party claimants and then settle by paying the reduced limits? I think not. The words “by operation of law” must have some meaning beyond a liability insurer merely taking an off-coverage position…*

*20. By alleging policy violation and adding itself as a statutory third party, the insurer who takes an off-coverage position, as Co-operators did here, merely preserves its position. It will then be an issue to be determined in the subsequent litigation…Until there is a finding, however, the insurer’s allegation of policy violation is merely that, an unproven allegation, and the policy limit will remain that set out in the insured’s policy.*

The decision in *Lica v. Dhaliwal*, followed the Court of Appeal decision in *Maccaroni* and specifically commented on what information and documentation the statutory third party had to provide to the plaintiff and OPCF44R insurer in relation to its denial of coverage and the circumstances of the alleged breach of policy.

The court held that both the plaintiff and the OPCF 44R insurer had the right to question the statutory third party on discovery and to receive documentary production relating to its denial of coverage. Only then, could the plaintiff and the OPCF44R insurer determine if the reduction in limits to the statutory minimum of $200,000 was legally justified, a determination necessary for the plaintiff to access its OPCF44R coverage according to the decision in *Maccaroni*.

It is, however, important to note that the actual coverage issue between the statutory third party and its insured is not being determined in this process. Rather, the statutory third party was simply required to disclose certain information so that the plaintiff and the OPCF44R insurer could properly consider their own issue of whether the OPCF44R coverage is indeed available to the plaintiff in the circumstances. In other words, the plaintiff and OPCF44R insurer are not legally “challenging” the denial of coverage but rather only seeking information as to the reasons and circumstances of the denial of coverage. The court in *Lica* made the following comments in this regard:

*43 The Court of Appeal in Maccaroni rejected the argument that the merits of the insurer’s denial of coverage can only be determined in an action between the statutory third party and the tortfeasor. The Court held that a factual determination in respect of the coverage issue binds neither the statutory third party nor the tortfeasors and affects only whether the plaintiff is entitled to coverage from its own insurer under the OPCF 44R endorsement. \[emphasis added\]*

*44 Mr. Lica is not challenging State Farm’s denial of coverage. He acknowledges that State Farm may have been justified in denying coverage. However, he requires evidence as to their reasons, so that it, and a court, can determine whether coverage was denied “by operation of law” for the purposes of Mr. Lica’s claim for OPCF 44R coverage.*

A similar finding was made in the decision in [*Prentzas v. Rivera* 2015 ONSC 5867](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc5867/2015onsc5867.html). Again, the issue before the court was whether a statutory third party had to answer questions and provide documents pertaining to its decision to deny coverage. The court in this case stated the following:

*37 I find in this case, both the Plaintiff and the \[OPCF44R insurer\] require the productions sought, to determine whether the tortfeasor’s insurer CAA’s off-coverage position is supported.*

*…*

*44 \[The OPCF44R insurer\] has been sued on the basis that the CAA policy is “reduced by operation of law”. Documents relevant to that issue are producible.*

## The Potential for Prejudice to the At Fault Defendant

In *Lica*, the statutory third party raised an important issue that disclosure of details regarding the insured’s conduct leading to the breach of policy could potentially result in prejudice to the insured who was still a defendant in the lawsuit. For example, if the grounds for the breach and subsequent denial involved impaired driving.

In response to this concern, the court in *Lica* still ordered the statutory third party to provide the information sought by the plaintiff and the OPCF44R insurer but if the statutory third party believed that such disclosure would prejudice the defence of the defendant or raise an issue of privilege, it could seal its answers and provide them to the court for review for a determination pursuant to Rule 31.06(6) on whether this information should be withheld.

A similar procedure was established in the very recent case of [*Jones v. Manzon* 2024 ONSC 1205](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc1205/2024onsc1205.html). It that case the court undertook a document by document review in order to deal with the statutory third party’s concerns that disclosure of certain of its documents could result in prejudice or loss of litigation privilege.

### The decision in Antony v. Bakthaavachalu (when the OPCF44R insurer is not a party)

In this case, Associate Justice Graham once again analyzed the law pertaining to statutory third parties and more specifically, whether statutory third parties were required to provide the plaintiff with the reasons and particulars for its denial of coverage. In this case, the plaintiff, who was seeking such information, relied upon the decisions in *Lica v. Dhaliwal* and Prentzas*v. Rivera* arguing that these cases had expanded the disclosure requirements of statutory third parties*.*

Associate Justice Graham refused the plaintiff’s request in this regard on the basis that the plaintiff in the case before him had not brought a claim against its own OPCF44R insurer. The requirement for greater production from the statutory third party in *Lica* and Prentzas was based on the requirement for the plaintiffs in those cases to establish entitlement under their OPCF44R Endorsements.

In the absence of this requirement, the plaintiff was only entitled to know the reason for the denial of coverage but not the details of the investigation that led to that decision (see paragraph 6).

The decision in *Antony v. Bakthaavachalu* was cited with approval in the recent decision in *Jones v. Manzon*. In that decision the court stated the following with respect to the two different requirements for production depending on the involvement of an OPCF44R claim:

*23 The scope of discovery of a defendant’s insurer, where the plaintiff is pursuing damages for injuries and losses sustained in a motor vehicle accident, differs where the defendant insurer is not simply a statutory third-party but rather the plaintiff has additionally pursued its case against the plaintiff’s underinsured motorist \[OPCF44R\] insurer in the same action as a party defendant.*

*24 The differing scope of discovery, available to the plaintiff, of the defendant’s auto insurer was thoroughly and carefully considered by Associate Justice Graham in his decision in Antony v. Bakthavachalu 2017 ONSC 4943. In this decision, the court confirmed that the plaintiff may properly seek disclosure of the details of the insurer’s investigation of an accident as well as the circumstances of the insured’s coverage where the plaintiff’s underinsured motorist insurer is a party defendant to the action. If the plaintiff’s underinsured motorist insurer is not a defendant to the proceeding, the plaintiff’s discovery rights would be limited to those provided for in rule 31.06(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the jurisprudence related to that rule.*

Accordingly, a plaintiff’s right to obtain details of the statutory third party’s denial of coverage only exists when the plaintiff has made a claim against its OPCF44R Endorsement. In the absence of such a claim, a plaintiff is only entitled to know the reason for the denial but not the details of the investigation underlying the denial.

## Conclusion

The issues reviewed in this paper can be reduced to the following 7 points:

1. An automobile insurer who denies coverage to its insured may apply to the court to have itself added as a statutory third party. The only precondition is that a denial of coverage has been made. The order is then mandatory. See [*Gordon v. Pendleton* (2007), 87 O.R. (3d) 706](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2007/2007canlii39886/2007canlii39886.html).
2. The statutory third party is not obligated to disclose the reason for its denial of coverage at the motion stage. See [*Gordon v. Pendleton* (2007), 87 O.R. (3d) 706](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2007/2007canlii39886/2007canlii39886.html).
3. The circumstances where another party would be entitled to oppose the motion adding an insurer as a statutory third party would be exceedingly rare given the mandatory language of section 258 (14) of the *Insurance Act.*
4. The insured/defendant to whom coverage has been denied is entitled to challenge the denial of coverage either in separate proceedings or by way of a procedural third claim in the main action. See [*Lica v. Dhaliwal* 2015 ONSC 3888](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc3888/2015onsc3888.html).
5. In the absence of a claim against its own OPCF44R insurer, a plaintiff is only entitled to know the reason for the statutory third party’s denial of coverage but not the particulars of the investigation that led to the decision to deny. See *Antony v. Bakthaavachalu* 2017 ONSC 4943, [*Jones v. Manzon* 2024 ONSC](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc1205/2024onsc1205.html).
6. By contrast, a plaintiff who is claiming against its OPCF44R insurer has expanded discovery rights and is entitled to particulars regarding the denial of coverage and the underlying policy breach. This distinction is necessitated by the requirement that the plaintiff must establish its entitlement to underinsured coverage under the OPCF44R Endorsement by demonstrating that the defendant’s available insurance limits have been properly reduced by “operation of law”. See [*Maccaroni v. Kelly* 2011 ONCA 411](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca411/2011onca411.html)*,* [*Lica v. Dhaliwal* 2015 ONSC 3888](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc3888/2015onsc3888.html) and [*Prentzas v. Rivera* 2015 ONSC 5867](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc5867/2015onsc5867.html).
7. Any concerns by the statutory third-party that disclosure of its documents may result in loss of litigation privilege or prejudice to its insured, who remains a party defendant, may be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by sealing the documents and applying to the court for directions. See [*Jones v. Manzon* 2024 ONSC 1205](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc1205/2024onsc1205.html), [*Lica* v. *Dhaliwal* 2015 ONSC 3888](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc3888/2015onsc3888.html).

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Civil Litigation, Motor Vehicle Accident, Rules of Civil Procedure, Statutory Third Parties

---

### [The Importance of Title Insurance in Real Estate Transactions](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-importance-of-title-insurance-in-real-estate-transactions/)

**Published:** April 23, 2024
**Author:** Peter Reinitzer

**Excerpt:** Title insurance has become a near-standard part of Ontario real estate deals, protecting both owners and lenders against hidden risks. This guide explains what a title insurance policy typically covers, from fraud and forgery to survey, zoning, and title-defect problems, and the exclusions you should be aware of.

**Content:**

Title insurance is commonly used in Ontario real estate transactions as a means of protecting property owners and mortgage lenders against certain risks associated with title defects.

Title insurance policies typically cover issues such as fraud, forgery, encroachments, zoning violations, and other potential defects in the title to the property.

Here are some key points related to title insurance law in Ontario:

## Voluntary Nature

Title insurance is generally not mandatory in Ontario. However, it has become a common – nearly ubiquitous – practice in real estate transactions, and many property owners and lenders choose to obtain title insurance for added protection.

## Protection for Lenders and Owners

Title insurance policies can provide protection for both mortgage lenders and property owners. Lenders typically require title insurance as a condition for providing a mortgage loan, while owners may purchase it voluntarily.

## Policy Coverage

Title insurance policies can vary, and it is crucial to carefully review the terms and conditions of the policy with your real estate lawyer. Coverage may include protection against title defects, legal expenses related to title challenges, and in some cases, loss of marketability of title.

## Exclusions and Limitations

Like any insurance policy, title insurance may have exclusions and limitations. Certain issues, such as known title defects or environmental hazards, may not be covered.

## Role in Real Estate Transactions

Title insurance plays a role in facilitating real estate transactions by providing a layer of protection against unforeseen title issues. It can expedite the closing process and offer peace of mind to parties involved in the transaction.

Title insurance typically covers more than just matters of title. While the primary purpose of title insurance is to protect against defects in title, it often extends coverage to a range of related risks and issues. The specific coverage can vary based on the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Here are some common areas that title insurance may cover:

### Title Defects

This is the primary focus of title insurance. It protects against defects in title, such as errors in public records, undisclosed heirs, forgeries, fraud, and other issues that may affect the property’s ownership.

### Survey and Boundary Issues

Title insurance may cover survey and boundary issues, including encroachments or boundary disputes that were not disclosed during the property transaction.

### Zoning Violations

Some policies may provide coverage for losses arising from zoning violations that were not known at the time of purchase.

### Title Search Errors

If there are errors or omissions in the title search conducted during the real estate transaction, title insurance may provide coverage for resulting losses.

### Fraud and Forgery

Title insurance often protects against losses arising from fraud or forgery in the transfer of the property.

### Building Permit Issues

Certain policies may cover losses resulting from the lack of proper building permits or other related compliance issues.

### Municipal Issues

Coverage may extend to losses related to outstanding municipal utility charges, tax arrears, or other municipal liens not disclosed during the property transaction.

### Legal Expenses

Some policies may cover legal expenses incurred in defending against challenges to the title.

## Conclusion

It’s important for property owners and lenders to carefully review the terms and conditions of their title insurance policy to understand the specific coverage provided. Additionally, exclusions and limitations should be considered, as certain matters may not be covered. As the details of title insurance policies can vary, seeking advice from a qualified insurance professional or legal advisor is recommended to ensure a clear understanding of the coverage and its limitations.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Exclusions, Title Insurance

---

### [Can I Sue for Medical Malpractice in Ontario?](https://dcmlaw.ca/can-i-sue-for-medical-malpractice/)

**Published:** May 4, 2024
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Excerpt:** Anyone can start a medical malpractice lawsuit in Ontario, but very few succeed. Drawing on two decades representing patients against doctors and hospitals, Paul Cahill explains what you have to prove, whether a claim actually punishes the doctor, how long you have to sue, what it costs, what it is worth, and how long it takes.

**Content:**

For the past two decades, [I have devoted the majority of my practice](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/) to representing patients in claims against doctors and hospitals. The question I am asked most often is a simple one: can I sue for medical malpractice? The short answer is yes. Anyone can start a lawsuit for medical malpractice. Very few, however, will succeed.

If you have recently had a bad outcome from medical treatment, you are understandably angry and upset, and a lawsuit may feel like the obvious response. Where there has been a serious loss of life, limb, or function because of suspected malpractice, then yes, you should absolutely consider a civil claim for compensation. But our civil litigation system has some hard realities when it comes to medical malpractice, and I think every prospective client should understand them before hiring a lawyer. In this article I answer the questions I believe matter most:

- What do I actually have to prove?
- Will a medical malpractice claim punish the doctor?
- How long do I have to start a claim?
- How much does it cost to sue a doctor or hospital?
- How much is my claim worth?
- How long does a claim take?
- Do lawsuits improve patient safety?

## What Do I Actually Have to Prove?

This is where most claims live or die. To succeed, you have to prove two separate things, and proving one without the other is not enough.

First, that the care fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in the same field. This is not measured by hindsight, and it is not established just because the result was bad. Medicine is full of risks and complications that happen even with excellent care. The standard of care is a question of expert evidence: another physician in the same specialty has to be willing to say, on the record, that what happened fell below what was acceptable.

Second, that the substandard care actually caused the injury. This is called causation, and it is often the harder hurdle. A patient can receive genuinely negligent care and still lose the case if the same harm would likely have happened anyway. Causation, too, turns on expert evidence about what would have occurred with proper treatment.

Because both elements require supportive expert opinion, and because qualified experts are expensive and not always available, a great many complaints that feel like obvious malpractice cannot be turned into viable lawsuits. That is the single biggest reason so few claims succeed.

## Will a Medical Malpractice Claim Punish the Doctor?

No, not really. It is important to keep in mind that civil lawsuits are primarily about financial compensation. Our justice system does recognize that lawsuits can also condemn negligent conduct, but at the end of the day a malpractice claim is about dollars and cents. For the vast majority of cases, the goal is to put the injured person in the best financial position possible, as though the negligent care had never happened. Courts almost never award punitive damages against a doctor or hospital, and even where they do, the award may not be covered by the physician’s indemnity association, which can make collecting it difficult.

A claim can certainly affect a physician’s reputation, and that is one reason these cases are so vigorously defended by the Canadian Medical Protective Association. But the professional consequences are narrower than most people assume. If a doctor loses at trial and a court makes a finding of negligence or malpractice, that finding must be reported to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and is posted on the College’s public register. The launch of a lawsuit, and a settlement reached out of court, are not reported, and the great majority of cases that resolve do so by confidential settlement with no finding against anyone. A successful claim may, in rare cases, carry licensing consequences, and a physician sued in a hospital setting can face questions about their privileges. But a lawsuit will not leave the doctor out of pocket: their legal fees and any award paid to a successful patient are covered. There is a very effective system in place to defend and indemnify physicians.

So if your real objective is retribution, a lawsuit is not the right tool. If you want to hold a doctor to account for their conduct, the better route is [a complaint to their regulator](https://dcmlaw.ca/how-to-make-a-complaint-against-a-physician-to-the-college-of-physicians-and-surgeons-of-ontario-cpso/), the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

## How Long Do I Have to Start a Claim?

Generally, two years. Under Ontario’s *Limitations Act, 2002*, you usually have two years to start a lawsuit, but the clock does not necessarily run from the date of the treatment. It runs from when you knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that you were injured and that the injury was likely caused by substandard care. In medicine that date can be genuinely difficult to pin down, because problems often emerge slowly and a doctor may spend months or even years trying to fix a complication before anyone realizes negligence may be involved.

Two points matter especially. For children, the two-year clock does not start to run until they turn 18, which is why birth-injury claims can be brought many years after the birth. And there is an ultimate limitation period of fifteen years, which the courts enforce strictly regardless of when the problem was discovered. The timing rules are full of traps, and a meritorious claim can be lost simply because it was started too late. If you think you may have been harmed, do not wait to get advice.

## How Much Does It Cost to Sue a Doctor or Hospital?

A lot. Medical malpractice lawyers generally work on contingency fee agreements that also cover the significant out-of-pocket cost of hiring expert witnesses, but make no mistake, these cases are expensive to run. They are very different from standard personal injury claims such as car accidents or slip and falls, which almost always resolve for some amount of money. Because of the concern about reputational harm, malpractice claims are heavily scrutinized by defence counsel, and the patient’s lawyer has to advance a well-supported, meritorious claim or face dismissal and no payment at all.

The hard consequence is that cases of relatively modest financial value are often bad risks for a lawyer to take on. I say this with real regret, because it means that those of us who specialize in this area must turn away claims that may well have merit but are simply not large enough to justify the time, expense, and risk involved. The elderly, patients with significant pre-existing conditions, and people who were not earning an income are among those who can find it hardest to retain a lawyer, because the likely cost of the case would exceed any realistic recovery.

## How Much Is My Claim Worth?

It depends. Assuming you can get over the difficult hurdle of proving liability, there are broadly three categories of compensation: pain and suffering (general damages), lost income, and the cost of care.

General damages for pain and suffering are capped in Canada, though the cap is adjusted for inflation each year. As of the date of this article, the maximum is approximately $470,000, and it is reserved for the most catastrophic injuries. That cap applies to medical malpractice claims, though the separate statutory deductible that reduces pain-and-suffering awards in car accident cases does not. There is no cap on claims for lost income or cost of care, and in serious cases those are by far the largest part of the claim.

A lost-income claim arises where someone who was working can no longer do so because of the malpractice, or, where a working person dies, where their dependants relied on that income for support. A person who was not working at the time, perhaps because of age or a pre-existing disability, will generally not recover anything for lost income. The cost of care varies enormously. Most medical treatment in Ontario is covered by OHIP, but outpatient rehabilitation such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and psychological counselling is not, and over a lifetime those costs add up. The largest care claims arise where a person needs full-time attendant care, meaning help with the activities of daily living such as dressing, bathing, toileting, and feeding. Claims arising from a delayed diagnosis of stroke, cauda equina syndrome, or a traumatic birth injury often involve very large cost-of-care claims.

## How Long Does a Claim Take?

Four to seven years, on average. Medical malpractice claims move more slowly than ordinary personal injury claims. A careful lawyer will usually not even issue a lawsuit until completing a preliminary investigation, which means collecting the medical records and consulting one or more experts to assess whether the care was substandard and whether it caused harm. That investigation alone often takes six to twelve months, depending on expert availability.

Once the lawsuit is started, it has to work its way through the court system. The rough statistics I give clients are that about a third of claims are eventually abandoned with no payment, a third settle, and a third go to trial, and of the cases that go to trial the doctor and hospital are generally favoured to win. Every case is different, but you want to be in the settlement group, and to get there you need a lawyer who is experienced and genuinely prepared to take your case to trial. Settlements usually do not come until close to trial, which is why these cases can take years to resolve. Even a win at trial is frequently appealed by the defence, which can add another year or more. The length of time it takes a seriously injured person to receive the compensation they are owed is, frankly, outrageous. Too many victims of malpractice have to live with both a catastrophic disability and financial hardship while they wait.

## Do Lawsuits Improve Patient Safety?

Some do, some do not. It really depends on the case. A great many claims arise from simple human error. Hospitals do a great deal to build safeguards against those errors, and they still happen, and a single lawsuit is not likely to prevent the next one. But some claims expose systemic problems in a hospital that lead to real changes in policy or procedure, and a claim against an individual physician can prompt them to improve their knowledge or skill in a particular area. So yes, I do believe lawsuits can improve patient safety, but I would not call them the best way to do it, and I would never bring a claim for that reason alone.

If your primary concern is patient safety rather than compensation, the better route is a complaint to the hospital, where applicable, or to the relevant regulator, such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario or the College of Nurses of Ontario. Protecting the public from harm is precisely what those bodies exist to do.

## Conclusion

Medical malpractice claims are extremely difficult to prosecute successfully. That said, there are many cases where negligence or a medical error has genuinely harmed a patient and there is a real prospect of recovering fair compensation. If you have suffered serious harm from what you believe may be medical negligence, you should speak with one of [our medical malpractice lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/medical-malpractice-lawyers/) for advice on whether a claim makes sense for you. [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) to arrange a consultation.

**Categories:** Medical Malpractice

**Tags:** Causation, CPSO, Damages, Expert Evidence, Medical Malpractice, Standard of Care

---

### [Slip and Fall Injuries in Ontario: Your Rights and the Deadlines That Can Bar Your Claim](https://dcmlaw.ca/dont-slip-up-on-your-rights-after-a-fall/)

**Published:** May 15, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** A slip or fall on someone else's property can leave you with serious injuries and the right to compensation, but Ontario law sets short deadlines that catch people off guard. This guide explains when a property owner is responsible, the 60-day notice rule for snow and ice falls, the different deadline for city sidewalks, what you have to prove, and the steps to protect your claim.

**Content:**

A slip or fall on someone else’s property is rarely just an embarrassing moment. A patch of unsalted ice, a wet floor with no warning sign, or a broken stair can leave you with a fractured wrist, a torn shoulder, or a head injury that keeps you off work for months. Ontario law gives you the right to compensation when a property was not kept reasonably safe. It also imposes short, easily missed deadlines, and the most important thing to understand is that you may have far less time to protect your claim than you think. This guide explains who is responsible for a fall, the notice deadlines that catch people off guard, what you have to prove, and what to do next.

## When Is a Property Owner Responsible for Your Fall?

Falls on private and commercial property are governed by the *Occupiers’ Liability Act*. It requires an “occupier” to take reasonable care to see that people on the premises are reasonably safe. An occupier is anyone in possession of, or responsible for and in control of, a property, which often means more than one party at once: the owner, a tenant, a property manager, the business operating there, and the contractor hired to handle maintenance or snow removal.

Reasonable care is not a guarantee that no one will ever fall. The real question in most cases is whether the occupier had a sensible system for inspecting and maintaining the property and actually followed it. A grocery store that mops up spills on a set schedule and logs it stands on very different ground from one that ignored a leak for hours. The hazards behind most slip and fall claims are familiar: snow and ice, wet or recently washed floors, spills left unattended, uneven flooring or pavement, poor lighting, loose mats, debris, and broken stairs or missing handrails.

## The Deadline Most People Miss: The 60-Day Snow and Ice Notice

This is the single most important point on this page. Since January 29, 2021, if your fall was caused by **snow or ice**, you must give **written notice within 60 days** of the fall to the occupier and to any contractor responsible for clearing the snow or ice. Miss that window, and your claim can be barred entirely, no matter how serious your injuries are.

The notice has to set out the date, time, and location of the fall, and it must be delivered by personal service or by registered mail. There is a narrow safety valve: a judge can excuse a missed or insufficient notice where there was a reasonable excuse for the delay and the defendant was not prejudiced in defending the claim, and the requirement does not apply where the injured person has died. But courts read “reasonable excuse” strictly, and being unaware of the rule or simply focused on recovering usually does not qualify.

Two practical problems make this deadline dangerous. First, it is often unclear who the right parties even are, because a plaza or condominium can have several occupiers and more than one snow contractor responsible for different areas. Second, insurers and contractors use those 60 days to gather salting logs, surveillance footage, and witness accounts before the trail goes cold. This is precisely the point at which to involve a lawyer quickly, so the notice is served on the right parties, in the right form, and on time.

## Falls on City Sidewalks Follow Different Rules

If you fell on a municipal sidewalk or other public property, a separate framework applies under the *Municipal Act, 2001* (and the *City of Toronto Act* in Toronto). The notice period is far shorter, generally about 10 days to notify the municipality, and the legal standard is tougher. For snow or ice on a municipal sidewalk, you must show the municipality was grossly negligent, not merely careless. Pinning down exactly where you fell, private property or city sidewalk, matters enormously, because it changes both the deadline and what you have to prove.

## The Two-Year Limitation Period

The notice requirements above are separate from, and on top of, the deadline to actually start a lawsuit. Under the *Limitations Act, 2002*, you generally have two years from the date of the fall to commence your claim in court. Serving notice protects your right to bring the claim; it is not the same as starting the lawsuit, and both deadlines have to be met.

## What You Have to Prove

Winning a slip and fall claim is not automatic just because you were hurt. You generally have to show that a hazard existed, that the occupier knew or ought to have known about it, that the occupier failed to take reasonable care, and that the fall caused your injuries and losses. The evidence that decides these cases is often gone within days: photographs of the actual hazard, an incident report from the store or building, the names of witnesses, the footwear you were wearing, weather records, and the occupier’s own maintenance and salting logs. That is why acting early matters so much; the occupier is preserving its evidence from day one, and you should be preserving yours.

Expect the other side to push back. Occupiers routinely argue that you were not watching where you were going, that you wore unsuitable footwear, or that the hazard was obvious. This is called contributory negligence, and even if it succeeds it usually reduces your compensation rather than eliminating the claim. A clear record of what happened is the best answer to it.

## What to Do After a Slip and Fall

1. **Get medical attention** and make sure your injuries are documented from the start.
2. **Report the fall** to the property owner, store, or building manager, and ask for a written incident report.
3. **Photograph the hazard and the scene right away**, before it is cleaned, salted, or repaired.
4. **Collect witness names and contact details**, and keep the footwear and clothing you were wearing.
5. **Write down the date, time, and exact location** of the fall while it is fresh.
6. **Get legal advice promptly**, especially after a snow or ice fall, so the 60-day notice is served correctly and on time.

For a fuller walkthrough of these first moves, see our guide on the [steps to take after a slip and fall accident in Ontario](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-steps-to-take-after-a-slip-and-fall-accident-in-ontario/).

## What Your Claim May Be Worth

Every claim is different, and the value depends on the nature of your injury and how it affects your life. Compensation can include general damages for pain and suffering, past and future loss of income, the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation, attendant care, and out-of-pocket expenses. A minor sprain that heals in weeks and a fractured hip that ends someone’s independence are not in the same range, and an honest assessment requires looking at your specific injuries, prognosis, and losses.

## How We Help

Our team handles the parts of a slip and fall claim that are easy to get wrong on your own. We identify every occupier and contractor who may be responsible, serve the required notices on time, move quickly to preserve evidence before it disappears, deal with the insurer on your behalf, and build the claim toward a fair result. Most slip and fall cases resolve through negotiation or mediation, but we prepare every file as though it will go to trial.

## Frequently Asked Questions

**How long do I have to make a slip and fall claim in Ontario?** It depends on where you fell. For snow or ice on private property, written notice is generally required within 60 days. For a municipal sidewalk, the notice period is much shorter, roughly 10 days. Separately, you usually have two years from the fall to start a lawsuit. Because the deadlines are short and easy to miss, get advice early.

**I slipped on ice weeks ago and did not give notice. Is it too late?** Not necessarily. A judge can excuse a late or missing notice where there was a reasonable excuse and the defendant was not prejudiced, but that exception is applied narrowly. Speak to a lawyer right away rather than assuming your claim is gone.

**Who is responsible if I fell at a store or shopping mall?** Often more than one party, including the owner, the business operating the premises, the property manager, and any contractor hired to clean or clear snow and ice. Part of the work is identifying all of them.

**What if I was partly to blame for my fall?** You may still have a claim. Being found partly at fault, for example for footwear or inattention, generally reduces your compensation rather than barring the claim outright.

**Do I really need a lawyer?** These cases turn on short deadlines, fast-disappearing evidence, and the occupier’s own maintenance records. Early legal advice is the most reliable way to protect your claim before a technical deadline does the insurer’s work for it.

## Talk to a Slip and Fall Lawyer

If you have been injured in a slip or fall, the worst thing you can do is wait, particularly if snow or ice was involved. Our [slip and fall lawyers in Toronto](https://dcmlaw.ca/slip-and-fall-lawyer-toronto/) can identify who is responsible, protect your deadlines, and pursue the compensation you are owed. [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) for a consultation and let us help you take the next step.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Occupiers' Liability, Slip and Fall

---

### [Damages in Negligent Inducement of Purchase of Defective Property](https://dcmlaw.ca/damages-in-negligent-inducement-of-purchase-of-defective-property/)

**Published:** May 21, 2024
**Author:** David Morin

**Excerpt:** Since the Court of Appeal decided Bowman v Martineau, the case is often cited for the idea that damages in professional negligence are always measured by diminution in value. In this in-depth commentary, Paul Cahill argues that is a misreading and sets out how damages in these cases should actually be quantified, including when cost of repair, rather than diminution in value, is the right measure.

**Content:**

*In my practice, I frequently find myself involved in professional negligence cases. Since the publication of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in* [***Bowman v. Martineau***](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2020/2020onca330/2020onca330.html)*, I have often heard from opposing counsel that Bowman stands for the proposition that the liability of defendants in professional negligence cases is always assessed on a diminution in value basis. That is not what the Bowman decision stands for, though, and this article is designed to set out what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Bowman as it pertains to the quantification of damages in professional negligence cases.*

**THE FACTS**

Aden and Shirley Bowman had seven children. Aden was a carpenter and Shirley a homemaker and avid gardener. Aden had suffered bankruptcy on a business venture and, unable to qualify for a mortgage, the Bowmans continued renting for $1,750 a month, which was high for them in 2014. On their weekly drive to Bracebridge for groceries, they passed a 1970s style bungalow with a for sale sign. They stopped to pick up a brochure prepared by the listing agent, Ms. Martineau, stating, “Solid well built home with good bones … clean and move in ready.” The Bowmans arranged to see it because it was in the right location for their kids’ schools. It was dated but clean and had five bedrooms. It needed paint and the old carpets removed. They would take out a kitchen wall to make room for their large dining table and that was all the work they anticipated. The six acres would accommodate a carpentry shop for Aden’s business and a large garden for Shirley. It was perfect.

Aden asked Ms. Martineau if there was a checklist of information about the roof, septic, and well. Ms. Martineau told him it was called a Sellers Property Information Statement (“SPIS”), but she could not give it to him because the sellers had not signed it. The MLS listing in the brochure, however, states “SPIS: Yes.” The sellers, Alma and Shelley Emond, mother and daughter, had signed their SPIS on the listing date, March 21, 2014. It contained the following information regarding the roof:

9\. (a) Are you aware of any moisture and/or water problems? “No”.
9\. (b) Are you aware of any roof leakage “Yes” or unrepaired damage “No”.

Additional comments: Question 9B. We have a roof heating line in the valleys for ice build up. But it is insufficient. The first roof my dad put on – he overlapped the shingles ¾ to 1”. This eliminates the ice from being able to lift the tiles. We assumed our builder would do the same and didn’t. Using the minimal overlap is not wise.

Ms. Martineau did not ask the sellers to elaborate on their cryptic answer in the SPIS. She instructed them to let her do the talking when there was a showing. The Bowmans found the property quite suitable and, hopeful of getting financing, approached several mortgage brokers recommended by Ms. Martineau. They had no luck obtaining financing, however, and had to put the house purchase out of their mind. Several weeks later, Ms. Martineau called to say the sellers were willing to give a 95% vendor-take-back mortgage. The Bowmans’ offer of $180,000 was accepted, subject to a home inspection. The sellers had already painted over water marks on the ceiling tiles, and the home inspector attributed the musty smell in the basement to original 1976 carpeting. The Bowmans removed the condition and closed the transaction.

When the Bowmans visited their new property after a rainfall, they found a puddle on the kitchen floor and some carpeting soaked. The vapour barrier in the attic ballooned full of rainwater. When they took out the kitchen wall, they found that mould coated the inside of walls and studs. The backs of electric baseboard heaters were rusted through. Some floor joists were rotted through. Water penetration had obviously been a longstanding issue. Aden said at trial that if he had known about the condition of the house he would never have bought it.

Because of the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, however, the Bowmans decided to make repairs and accomplish the tear-out before winter. Despite taking precautions, the unheated basement floor heaved due to frost and cracked the trusses, making matters worse. Still the Bowmans did not walk away. Aden said, “My children want to live there. It’s the location they want to live to be able to go to the same school and it’s got acreage and we had plans…” The Bowmans were able to pay both their mortgage and their rent for a year before they could no longer manage the mortgage payment. The Emonds commenced a mortgage action, and the Bowmans commenced this action.

**THE RESULT AT TRIAL**

At trial, Mr. Justice di Tomaso found the sellers liable in negligence based on the concealment of the serious and ongoing leakage problem in the house. Referring to Shelley Emond he said, “There was ongoing water infiltration and she knew it. The musty smell was not old carpets, but mould.” She knew there was a latent defect and that it rendered the house uninhabitable. Her liability was apportioned at 30%.\[1\]Before trial she settled by *Pierringer* Agreement.

Damages were based on the tort of negligence. Justice di Tomaso concluded,

*\[186\] I find the Bowmans are entitled to be put in the position they would have been in if the negligent conduct had not taken place. The Bowmans thought they were purchasing a house free from mould and water damage.*

*…
\[192\] In Jarbeau v Maclean, where a purchaser believed it had purchased a home free of defects, “the fairest measure of damages is that which would provide the \[plaintiffs\] with what they bargained for – a home free of defects.”*

*\[193\] Following the reasoning in Jarbeau, I find the fairest measure of damages would be damages that provide the Bowmans with a home that is free of mould and water damage, as well as any consequential damages flowing therefrom, and out-of-pocket expenses.*\[2\]

**THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION**

Ms. Martineau appealed the trial decision, seeking to overturn the trial judge’s decision on damages only. On appeal, Ms. Martineau argued that since she, as a negligent professional, did not cause the underlying defects (decay, mould, uninhabitability) she was entitled to have damages against her assessed on a “diminution in value” basis rather than on the basis of the cost necessary to repair the defects. The Court of Appeal agreed, saying,

*\[17\] I agree with the appellants’ position. The difficulty with the respondents’ argument is that it conflates the cause in fact of their damages with the reasonableness of the quantum. In my view, the trial judge erred in his approach to causation. Specifically, the trial judge mischaracterized the respondents’ loss flowing from the appellants’ negligence and misinterpreted this court’s decision in Jarbeau.*

*…
\[22\] In the present case … the loss that the respondents suffered as a result of the appellants’ negligence was not property loss \[like that suffered in Jarbeau\].*

*\[23\] The respondents’ loss consisted of entering into a transaction to purchase a house damaged by water and mould. The appellants’ negligent provision of professional services caused the respondents to enter into a transaction that they would not have otherwise undertaken. But the appellants did not cause the water and mould damage to the property. In other words, even if the appellants had not been negligent, the respondents would still not have received a water and mould-free property; they would merely have avoided this bargain. This takes this case outside the scope of Jarbeau, Nan, and other cases where the negligence was causally related to property damage.*

*\[24\] As the appellants’ wrong did not cause the property defect, the respondents are not entitled to demand … a house free of mould and water damage… They are only entitled to damages to compensate them for entering into a bad transaction they would have otherwise avoided. These damages will include their overpayment for the defective property, namely, its diminution in value.*

*\[25\] … Awarding cost to repair would over-compensate the respondents and therefore not put them in the position they would have occupied but for the appellants’ negligence.*

The Court of Appeal remitted the calculation of the diminution in value back to Justice di Tomaso, however the dispute was settled as between the parties without further intervention from the courts.

**ANALYSIS – WHAT DOES THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION IN BOWMAN MEAN?**

The trial judge found, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that but for Ms. Martineau’s negligence, Mr. Bowman would have learned of the home’s significant deficiencies and would not have purchased the defective home. I believe that this is the part of the appeal decision at which many of my colleagues are led astray. Ms. Martineau is a professional, and her negligence did not cause the problems with the home. This must mean – so my colleagues have suggested to me – that professionals *cannot*be held liable for the cost to repair damage unless the plaintiff proves that the professional *actually caused* the damage at issue. As a result, professionals can only be held liable for the diminution in value between the price paid and the actual value of the deficient property.

With the utmost of respect to my dear colleagues, this is an oversimplification of the Court of Appeal’s reasons. *Bowman*does *not* stand for the proposition that professionals, as a class of defendants, will always have their damages assessed on a diminution in value basis in property loss cases. Rather, the manner in which damages are quantified must accord with the *specific type of loss* occasioned by the professional’s negligence. In other words, what are the damages that the defendant’s negligence *actually caused*?

Indeed, several of the cases that the Court of Appeal relied on in *Bowman* involve negligent professionals whose damages were calculated on a cost to repair basis.

In ***Jarbeau v. McLean***,\[3\] for example, the defendant solicitor was negligent in failing to sue an engineer on behalf of their purchaser clients, who thereby lost the opportunity to recover cost of repair damages from the engineer for negligently approved house construction. The solicitor did not cause the house to be poorly constructed, nor did the solicitor negligently approve construction. But the damages flowing from the solicitor’s negligence were calculated on a cost of repair basis, because that negligence cost the plaintiffs the ability to recover the cost of repair from the engineer.

In ***Tabata v. McWilliams***,\[4\] the defendant solicitor was negligent in failing to advise their purchaser clients that they needed to obtain an occupancy permit prior to purchasing their home. The home’s basement had been constructed poorly and a foundation wall failed four years later. The trial judge and the Court of Appeal agreed that the solicitor’s negligence deprived the plaintiffs of the ability to obtain an occupancy inspection – which would have been a necessary precondition to obtaining an occupancy permit. That occupancy inspection, in turn, would have likely identified the foundation deficiencies. That identification of deficiencies would have likely permitted the plaintiffs to require the vendors to rectify the deficiencies prior to entering into the purchase and sale transaction. Damages against the solicitor were assessed on a cost to repair basis. The solicitor did not construct the foundation or otherwise cause the foundation deficiencies. But because the solicitor’s negligence cost the plaintiffs their ability to detect and remedy the deficiencies, the damages that flowed from the solicitor’s negligence was the cost to remedy the deficiencies.

A similar result can be found in the case of ***Andrade v Collins***.\[5\] In *Andrade*, a lawyer was found liable for the cost to replace regulatorily noncompliant underground gas tanks for failing to adequately protect her client, Mr. Andrade, in his purchase of the restaurant and gas bar property in which the tanks were situated. It was common ground at trial that the lawyer did not cause the tanks to be regulatorily noncompliant. Nevertheless, having purchased and become the new owners of the tanks, Mr. Andrade was subjected to TSSA orders to remedy the noncompliance or risk a hefty fine or imprisonment. In her decision, Justice S.K. Stothart found that Mr. Andrade would not have been able to sell the property with the defective tanks given the outstanding TSSA orders to remedy and the risk of possible environmental contamination. Indeed, Andrade faced the risk of a fine or even imprisonment should he have failed to comply with the TSSA’s orders to remedy. As a result, she found that the cost to repair the tanks was a more appropriate measure rather than assessing the property’s diminution in value caused by the tanks’ defects.

The appeal decision in *Bowman*, along with the cases the Court of Appeal relied upon in its decision, show that the manner in which damages for professional misconduct are quantified depends on the type of loss that the professional negligence caused. In cases where the professional’s negligence caused the property defects or caused the plaintiffs to no longer be able to recover against a third party for the property defects (as was the case in *Jarbeau* and *Tabata*), cost of repair is the appropriate measure. Where the professional negligence caused the plaintiff to enter into a contract into which they otherwise would not have entered, diminution in value is the appropriate measure (as was the case in *Bowman*).

**JURISPRUDENTIAL REVIEW OF THE ISSUE OF DAMAGE QUANTIFICATION**

In my review of damages quantification jurisprudence, I came across several cases that provide valuable insight into the factors that courts will consider when quantifying damages.

**(1)** **NEGLIGENCE CAUSING PROPERTY LOSS**

I begin with residential properties and ***Jens v. Mannix Co**.*,\[6\] a 1978 decision of Meredith J. of the British Columbia Supreme Court. This decision is important because it discusses the principles of proportionality and reasonableness that the Court of Appeal refers to in *Bowman*.

The Jens family home north of 100 Mile House was located next to a hangar containing their collection of vintage automobiles. They invited visitors to the hangar and gave guided tours free of charge. In July, 1972, the defendant’s pipeline ruptured and crude oil saturated the buildings and land around the Jens’ home. An action ensued. The defendants admitted liability but argued the measure of damage was diminution in value, and there was no diminution in value because the land was zoned commercial and the property was worth just as much without the home and hangar. The plaintiffs asked for an amount sufficient to replace the buildings, the trees and topsoil, and to compensate for the inconvenience. They told the court how they had pioneered the area in the lumber business, had children and grandchildren living nearby, and wished to remain at that location for the remainder of their lives. Nothing less than a new house and remediated soil would compensate them.

Meredith J. cited an excerpt from *McGregor on Damages* where the author doubted whether the standard measure of damages in respect of damage to property was the diminution in value measure. McGregor took the view that the only time diminution in value is suitable is when replacement or repair is out of all proportion to the injury to the plaintiff. The difficulty in those cases, according to McGregor, was,

*… \[T\]he plaintiff may want his property in the same state as before the commission of the tort but the amount required to effect this may be substantially greater than the amount by which the value of the property has been diminished. The test which appears to be the appropriate one is the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s desire to reinstate the property; this will be judged in part by the advantages to him of reinstatement in relation to the extra cost to the defendant in having to pay damages for reinstatement rather than damages calculated by the diminution in value of the land.*\[7\]

Meredith J. awarded the cost of replacement because of two considerations which he found pivotal: (1) the plaintiffs’ claim to replacement of the building was reasonable as between the plaintiff and the defendant, and (2) replacement would not give the plaintiffs something effectively better or more valuable than they had before.

Mannix Co. appealed, asking that 16% depreciation be deducted from the award in respect of damage to the house, and that the appropriate date for assessing damages was the date of loss. The Court of Appeal agreed.\[8\] It also agreed with Meredith J. that damages were properly calculated on a cost-of-repair basis in the circumstances.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal refused to grant a discount for depreciation in ***Nan v. Black Pine Manufacturing Ltd.*****,**\[9\] where a heating contractor destroyed the plaintiffs’ home by fire. With unsatisfactory appraisal evidence in hand, the trial judge ordered payment of $69,809, the cost of rebuilding the home, which she felt more closely reflected the Nans’ loss. Black Pine appealed, arguing the appraisal of $47,000 was reliable and correct, seeking to have damages reduced further to $37,500 on a diminution-in-value basis. The Court of Appeal spoke out eloquently:

*\[19\] I do not find anything … that would require this court now to resile from the long-established general principles applicable to damages in tort actions. The first of those principles is reflected by the maxim restitutio in integrum, the damages shall be such as will, so far as money can, put the plaintiff in the same position as he would have been had the tort not occurred. The second is that the damages awarded must be reasonable both to the plaintiff and to the defendant.*

*\[20\] The result of the application of these principles, in most cases involving the tortious loss of or damage to property, will be that replacement costs will at least be the starting point for the assessment of damages. Whether or not the damages based on such costs should then be adjusted, either for pre-loss depreciation or post-reinstatement betterment, will depend on what is reasonable in the circumstances. No rules can be fashioned by which it can invariably be determined when such allowances should be made. It must, in all cases, turn on the facts peculiar to the case being considered.*

*\[21\] For example, a review of the cases might suggest that where the property in question had a predominantly commercial nature, or was clearly held for investment purposes, such considerations should be taken into account \[citations omitted\].*

*\[22\] But even in cases where the property destroyed is a purely commercial facility, such as a factory, the facts may be such as to compel the court not to make an allowance, either for depreciation or for betterment \[citations omitted\].*

*\[23\] As noted above it must, in all cases, depend on what is reasonable, both to the plaintiff and to the defendant tortfeasor. What then is reasonable in the case where a family home has been destroyed through the negligence of a third party? Even assuming that the evidence in this case had established a “betterment” of $32,000 to the respondent, by reason of the full reinstatement of his home, could it be said that it would be reasonable to reduce his damages by that amount, leaving him and his family to finance that portion of the reinstatement on their own? I think not.*

One of the cases the court cited with approval was ***Evans v. Balog***,\[10\] a 1976 decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The defendants were found liable for badly damaging the plaintiffs’ 75-year-old home. Like the defendants in *Jens v. Mannix Co.*, they sought diminution-in-value and then argued the home had no value because it was on property zoned for high-rise development and was worth more without the house than with it. Samuels J.A. disagreed, saying,

I turn then to the facts of the present case. Before doing so I merely observe in passing that the consequence that unless the plaintiffs get the costs of reinstatement they may get nothing, is enough to suggest that any rule which produces such a result in the present case cannot be soundly based. The question is whether it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to desire to reinstate their property. In my opinion, there is only one answer. It undoubtedly was. They had, in effect, lost their family home. That is the nature of their damage, and not some diminution in the value of their land. Fair compensation requires that they be given back what they had before; and the only way in which that purpose can be achieved is to award them the sum reasonably necessary to restore their property to the condition in which it was before the defendants effectively destroyed it. This the learned judge did; and, in my opinion, he was right. It is not to the point that the diminution in value basis might on one view produce no damages, while the reinstatement basis produces a substantial sum. The disproportion in question in cases of this kind are not always to be revealed by arithmetical comparison. The cost to a defendant of competing measures is a significant factor. But it is but one ingredient in the calculation of whether the plaintiffs’ claim is reasonable or not. There are cases, and this, in my opinion, is one, where the nature of the plaintiffs’ loss is such that there is only one mode of fairly repairing it. If that turns out to be more expensive than another, the wrongdoer has no one but himself to blame.\[11\]

Samuels J.A. relied on the same passage from *McGregor on Damages* as did Meredith J. in *Jens v. Mannix Co.*, which I repeat:

*The difficulty in deciding between diminution in value and cost of reinstatement arises from the fact that the plaintiff may want his property in the same state as before the commission of the tort but the amount required to effect this may be substantially greater than the amount by which the value of the property has been diminished. The test which appears to be the appropriate one is the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s desire to reinstate the property; this will be judged in part by the advantages to him of reinstatement in relation to the extra cost to the defendant in having to pay damages for reinstatement rather than damages calculated by the diminution in value of the land.*\[12\]

The Court of Appeal supported the trial judge’s decision to award the Nans the full amount of the cost of replacing their home, without deduction.

In ***Galan v. Finch***,\[13\] the defendant installed a wood burning furnace improperly and the plaintiff’s home was destroyed by fire. Damages were the cost to rebuild, without deduction for betterment. In an article by Alex L. Eged entitled “The Measure of Tort Damages for the Loss of a Building,”\[14\]the author concludes that where loss of a family home is concerned, the usual finding of the court is the cost of reinstatement.

The decision to order the cost of reinstatement is perhaps even more reasonable when only portions of the property are damaged, such as in ***Carrel v. Randy Laur Burner Service***,\[15\]where the defendant negligently repaired an oil furnace in the plaintiff’s basement resulting in many litres of fuel oil covering the porous concrete basement floor. The trial judge found it was not unreasonable to award the cost of replacing the basement floor.

I turn now to commercial property. The ***Harbutt’s “Plasticine” Ltd. v. Wayne Tank and Pump Co. Ltd**.**\[16\]***decision is a weighty one because the court awarded cost-of-replacement damages to a commercial enterprise when the tendency in the law was to treat commercial properties as investments and subject to the diminution-in-value measure of damages. In 1961, Harbutt paid £2,330 to the defendant for a piece of equipment for storing and dispensing liquefied wax. The heating system was defective, and in the course of making repairs, the defendant’s employees burned down the factory. Harbutt claimed under its fire insurance policy and rebuilt the factory, but it looked to the defendant to honour a clause in the equipment purchase agreement, which was to indemnify Harbutt against direct damage “to your property … caused by the negligence of ourselves or of our servants.” Litigation ensued, with Harbutt seeking cost-of-reinstatement damages of £146,581. The defendant sought difference-in-value damages of £116,785. Lord Denning said the appropriate measure was the cost of reinstatement:

*The destruction of a building is different from the destruction of a chattel. If a second-hand car is destroyed, the owner only gets its value, because he can go into the market and get another second-hand car to replace it. He cannot charge the other party with the cost of replacing it with a new car. But when this mill was destroyed, the plasticine company had no choice. They were bound to replace it as soon as they could, not only to keep their business going, but also to mitigate the loss of profit (for which they would be able to charge the defendants). They replaced it in the only possible way, without adding any extras. I think they should be allowed the cost of replacement. True it is that they got new for old; but I do not think the wrongdoer can diminish the claim on that account. If they had added extra accommodation or made extra improvements, they would have to give credit. But that is not this case. I think the judge was right on this point.*\[17\]

Lord Widgery agreed but added that “market value” cannot be measured for some kinds of property:

*In my opinion each case depends on its own facts, it being remembered, first, that the purpose of the award of damages is to restore the plaintiff to his position before the loss occurred, and secondly, that the plaintiff must act reasonably to mitigate his loss. If the article damaged is a motor car of popular make, the plaintiff cannot charge the defendant with the cost of repair when it is cheaper to buy a similar car on the market. On the other hand, if no substitute for the damaged article is available and no reasonable alternative can be provided, the plaintiff should be entitled to the cost of repair. It was clear in the present case that it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to rebuild their factory, because there was no other way in which they could carry on their business and retain their labour force.*\[18\]

Lord Cross was equally opposed to a “market value” comparison, saying,

*…\[I\]n my judgment the value of the building and of the plant and machinery before the fire throw no light on the true measure of damage in a case like this where it was obviously right for the plaintiffs to rebuild and re-equip their factory and start business again as soon as possible.*\[19\]

The Canadian counterpart to *Harbutt’s “Plasticine”* is ***James Street Hardware v. Spizziri***. The plaintiff’s hardware and furniture store was destroyed by fire caused by negligence. The company quickly set about rebuilding at the same location, but a modern and larger building, due partly to new building code requirements. They sought reimbursement from the defendant. At trial the judge awarded damages along the lines of a diminution in value. On appeal, the court preferred the cost of reinstatement approach taken in *Harbutt’s “Plasticine” Ltd.* and quoted from the same passage of *McGregor on Damages*\[20\]where he stated, “The test which appears to be the appropriate one is the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s desire to reinstatement the property; this will be judged in part by the advantages to him of reinstatement in relation to the extra cost to the defendant in having to pay damages for reinstatement rather than damages calculated by the diminution in the value of the land.” The court found it reasonable for James Street Hardware to continue operating from the same location and ordered the cost of reinstatement.

The defendant argued on appeal that damages should be reduced for betterment. The Court of Appeal agreed that there was an element of betterment involved in the cost of the replacement measure of damages; however, if it were deducted from the award, then the compensation would be inadequate. The court reasoned,

Quite simply, if a plaintiff, who is entitled to be compensated on the basis of the cost of replacement, is obliged to submit to a deduction from that compensation for incidental and unavoidable enhancement, he or she will not be fully compensated for the loss suffered. The plaintiff will be obliged, if the difference is paid for out of his or her own pocket, whether borrowed or already possessed, to submit to “some loss or burden”, to quote from Dr. Lushington. Widgery L.J. in *Harbutt’s “Plasticine”* called it “forcing the plaintiffs to invest their money in the modernising of their plant which might be highly inconvenient for them.”\[21\]

There are several cases which have held that cost-of-repair damages are inappropriate for damage or destruction to buildings. These cases, however, tend to be specific to property being held for development purposes. ***Montreal Trust v. Hercules***\[22\] was such a case. Montreal Trust acted as trustee for Monarch Homes, which had purchased 100 acres of farmland to subdivide for a new residential neighbourhood. On the farmland was a barn leased to Hercules. Through negligence, Hercules caused a fire which destroyed the barn. The trial judge awarded the cost of replacement, less depreciation. The Court of Appeal, however, considered the reasonableness of Montreal Trust’s request for cost of replacement. It was *un*reasonable, in its view, because Monarch intended to demolish the barn. Ordering a new trial on the assessment of damages, Schroeder J.A. said,

*\[4\] The learned trial judge excluded all evidence as to the purpose for which Monarch held this property which, it was said, envisaged the eventual demolition of the farm buildings to clear the land for housing construction.*

He quoted a previous Ontario Court of Appeal decision\[23\] where Davis J.A. said,

*It is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at an exact figure for the value of old barns upon a farm, but where a farm is in actual use and barns are obviously necessary for operation of the property as a farm, replacement cost is an element that may well be taken into account in ascertaining the actual loss. There are, of course, many cases where replacement cost less depreciation is obviously no measure of the loss. Old buildings are not infrequently a detriment, or at least of little value in the sale of land, and it would be wrong to estimate loss in such cases by ascertaining replacement cost… It is in every case the actual loss that is to be ascertained, though different methods of arriving at that loss may be appropriate in different cases.*\[24\]

The principles I extract from these cases where negligence causes property loss are:

(a) *Restitutio in integrum*is a primary consideration;

(b) Damages depend on the facts peculiar to the case;

(c) Damages for loss of residential or commercial property use may differ;

(d) Damages awarded must be reasonable both to the plaintiff and to the defendant. The reasonableness of the plaintiff’s desire to reinstate the property is judged in part by the advantages to him of reinstatement in relation to the extra cost to the defendant in having to pay damages for reinstatement rather than damages calculated by the diminution in value of the land (*McGregor on Damages)*;

(e) What may appear to be a disproportionately high cost of repair is a significant factor, but it is only one factor. Disproportion cannot always be revealed by arithmetical comparison because there are cases where the nature of the plaintiff’s loss is such that only the cost of repair will compensate;

(f) It may be appropriate to adjust cost-of-repair damages for depreciation;

(g) Consequential damages are in addition to the loss of the property; and

(h) Relatively small inadvertences (a spark from a welding torch in *James Street Hardware*, for example) can cause large losses of property and require large damage awards.

**(2)** **FRAUDULENT OR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION**

**INDUCING THE PURCHASE OF DEFECTIVE REAL PROPERTY**

In cases where a buyer is induced to purchase defective real property by means of a seller and her realtor’s fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, the measure of damages is often diminution in value of the thing purchased. The tort of negligent misrepresentation originated with the 1889 English House of Lords decision in ***Derry v. Peek***,\[25\] a case involving intangible personal property and pure economic loss. Shareholders who had lost their investment when the company whose shares they purchased went into liquidation started an action against the directors of the company for making false statements in their prospectus. The damages equation was relatively simple: the difference between the purchase price and the value of the shares if the truth had been known, which is the shares’ “diminution in value.”

Another seminal decision for the tort of negligent misrepresentation causing economic loss is ***Esso Petroleum v. Mardon***,\[26\] where Esso, wanting a gas station in Southport, purchased a site and told a prospective operator that he would sell 200,000 gallons a year. Unfortunately, the municipality did not allow the pumps to be located on the main thoroughfare, and most passersby could not even see them. Mr. Mardon sold only 78,000 gallons of gas and lost money. Esso reduced the rent and Mardon signed another lease, but business was worse than before and he could not make his rent payments. Esso drained the tanks, put Mardon out of business and started an action against him. Lord Denning recited the test for negligent misrepresentation:

*…if a man, who has or professes to have special knowledge or skill, makes a representation by virtue thereof to another – be it advice, information or opinion – with the intention of inducing him to enter into a contract with him, he is under a duty to use reasonable care to see that the representation is correct, and that the advice, information or opinion is reliable. If he negligently gives unsound advice or misleading information or expresses an erroneous opinion, and thereby induces the other side to enter into a contract with him, he is liable in damages.*

As for damages, Lord Denning said,

*Mr. Mardon is not to be compensated here for “loss of a bargain.” He was given no bargain that the throughput would amount to 200,000 gallons a year. He is only to be compensated for having been induced to enter into a contract which turned out to be disastrous for him… So the damages … are to be measured by the loss he suffered. Just as in Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd.\[1969\] 2 Q.B. 158, 167 he can say: “… I would not have entered into this contract at all but for your representation. Owing to it, I have lost all the capital I put into it. I also incurred a large overdraft. I have spent four years of my life in wasted endeavour without reward: and it will take me some time to re-establish myself.” For all such loss he is entitled to recover damages. It is to be measured in a similar way as the loss due to a personal injury. You should look into the future so as to forecast what would have been likely to happen if he had never entered into this contract: and contrast it with his position as it is now as a result of entering into it. The future is necessarily problematical and can only be a rough-and-ready estimate. But it must be done in assessing the loss.*\[27\]

“Diminution in value” became the measure of damages in economic loss cases; however, the measure was also applied to investment properties, i.e., real estate. In some investment property cases the decision is easy: diminution in value. However, in some of them, trial judges would prefer to grant expectation damages; to grant the purchaser the property she believed she purchased. The following four decisions illustrate the mixture of results:

1\. In ***Hepting v Schaff***,\[28\] the Supreme Court set out that where there is both a breach of contract cause of action and a tort cause of action, the plaintiff proceeds in tort. The Court also adopted the rebuttable presumption that the purchase price is the market value for the purposes of the “diminution in value” measure of damages.

The Heptings purchased a house in Regina from the Schaafs through the agency of Exner. They paid $17,700 for the 3-bedroom bungalow. The Schaafs and Exner represented that the house contained a *legal* suite to rent out. The trial judge found that the Schaafs and Exner perpetrated a fraud on the Heptings by concealing the fact that no permit had been issued to build the suite. He awarded as damages the difference between the value of a 3-bedroom house *with* a legal suite and one *without* a legal suite: $2,500. The Supreme Court agreed, citing with approval the seminal judgment in *McConnel v. Wright*, \[1903\] 1 Ch. 546, 72 LJ Ch 347 (C.A.) where Collins M.R. said at 554:

\[17\] … *That obliges me to say something as to the principle upon which damages are assessed in these cases. There is no doubt about it now. It has been laid down by several judges, and particularly by Cotton L.J. in Peek v. Derry \[1887\] 37 Ch D. 547, 57 LJ Ch 347; but the common sense and principle of the thing is this. It is not an action for breach of contract, and, therefore, no damages in respect of prospective gains which the person contracting was entitled by his contract to expect to come in, but it is an action of tort – it is an action for a wrong done whereby the plaintiff was tricked out of certain money in his pocket; and therefore, prima facie, the highest limit of his damages is the whole extent of his loss, and that loss is measured by the money which was in his pocket and is now in the pocket of the company.*

\[18\] Cozens-Hardy L.J. said at p. 559 \[of *Derry v. Peek*\]:

*As a rule of convenience, and indeed almost of necessity, the property which would have been acquired by the company, if all the statements in the prospectus had been correct, must prima facie be taken to be worth the precise sum paid for the property, neither more nor less. This is the prima facie presumption, and it is sufficient for the decision of the present case, for no evidence has been adduced by the defendant to rebut the presumption.*

Note that the tort damages awarded in *Schaff* were the same as would have been awarded for expectation damages for breach of warranty.

2\. In ***Parna v. G. & S. Properties Ltd.***,\[29\] the defendant sellers of an apartment building at 101 King St. E., Dundas knowingly made false representations (which is fraud) about the operating expenses of the building. The buyer purchased and found that he could not earn the expected income because of the high operating expenses. The trial judge awarded $24,790 in damages based on the difference between the purchase price and what the purchase price should have been based on the lower income. The Court of Appeal replaced that amount with damages of $4,000 on the basis that the plaintiffs were “not to be put in the position they would have been if the representations had been true.” Damages were the difference between the purchase price and the actual value of the property at the time of sale had the purchaser known the actual circumstances of the property.\[30\]Consequential damages were not in issue.

Consequential damages are usually an important part of the damage award. Consequential damages ensure that *this*particular plaintiff, in his or her circumstances, is compensated for the losses suffered other than for the property itself. In ***Liesbosch Dredger v. S.S. Edison***,\[31\]the House of Lords did not simply award the market value of the negligently sunk dredger. They awarded consequential damages as well because the dredger was booked into the future with contracts to perform. It had added value.

*… \[I\]t follows that the value of the Liesbosch to the appellants, capitalized as at the date of loss, must be assessed by taking into account: (1) the market price of a comparable dredger in substitution; (2) costs of adaptation, transport, insurance, etc., to Patras; (3) compensation for disturbance and loss of the Liesbosch and the time at which the substituted dredger could reasonably have been available for use in Patras, including in that loss such items as overhead charges, expenses of staff and equipment, and so forth thrown away, but neglecting any special loss due to the appellants’ financial position. On the capitalized sum so assessed, interest will run from the date of the loss.*

Consequential damages may appear to be used by judges to compensate for the failure of “diminution damages” to afford adequate compensation.

3\. In ***Wiebe v. Gunderson***,\[32\] the seller’s realtor prepared an information sheet based on information the seller had given him about his ranch in B.C. It stated the amount of land under irrigation and its yield, the output of the irrigation system, the amount of hay produced and the number of calves sold. All the representations were false; they were merely statements of what a farmer would want to hear about the ranch. The information sheet was sent to the Wiebes, who were prospective purchasers. Neither the seller nor the realtor told the Wiebes that the ground water had a high sodium content which, when used to irrigate the fields, made the soil unsuitable for growing most crops.

The Weibes purchased the ranch for $950,000. Over the following years they had great difficulty making the ranch profitable and they started an action. The trial judge found all the elements of deceit had been established:

*\[225\] … \[Gunderson\] not only knew all of the information on the information sheet was false before the second interim agreement was signed he specifically told Maurice Alexandre \[the realtor\] it was false yet neither he nor Alexandre did anything to advise the Wiebes but proceeded to sign the second deal (and induce it again by offering to include all the prime hay located in the hay shed).*

As for damages, the trial judge assessed his options:

*\[227\] I now turn to perhaps the most difficult aspect of this case, the assessment of damages. Liability for misrepresentation is an area of law which crosses the boundaries between contract, tort and restitution. If a misrepresentation is treated as a promise, a plaintiff may be entitled to a measure of damages calculated as if the promise was true. If it is approached as a tort the plaintiff would be entitled to be placed in the position he would have occupied before the statement was made. If it is approached as a restitution issue the concept is that it would be unjust that the defendant, by making a false statement, should be enriched at the plaintiff’s expense.*

*…*

*\[229\] In England and in Canada the authorities have consistently found that the proper approach is to apply the tortious measure of damages. This is an important distinction for this approach awards a measure of damages which places the plaintiff in the position he would have occupied if the statement had not been made rather than in that he would have occupied if the statement was true.*

After citing *McConnel v. Wright*and adopting the diminution in value measure of damages, he discussed the consequential damages that may also be awarded in misrepresentation cases and awarded damages of $440,000 for the diminution in value of the ranch as of the date of purchase, $90,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, and $500,000 for loss of profits.

The Court of Appeal,\[33\] however, reduced diminution-in-value damages to $350,000, saying the trial judge had erred in awarding the cost of placing the land in the physical condition in which it ought to have been in had the representation been true. The trial judge should have considered what a hypothetical, willing but not anxious buyer, informed of the true picture, would have paid a willing but not anxious seller for the “package” of assets constituting the ranch in a competitive market at the time of purchase. The court reduced loss of profits to $250,000 on the same basis. The Wiebes should have adjusted the ranch’s production in view of what it could produce instead of trying to force the land to do what they wanted to farm or what had been represented it as capable of producing. In other words, they had failed to mitigate.

There was a strong dissent given by Newbury J.A., who warned that courts should not forget that the primary goal of damages is to place the plaintiff in the place he would have occupied had the deceit not taken place. She cited the words of Lord Steyn in *Smith v. Scrimgeour Vickers*, \[1996\] 4 All E.R. 769 (Eng. H.L.) where he said.

*There is in truth only one legal measure of assessing damages in an action for deceit: the plaintiff is entitled to recover as damages a sum representing the financial loss flowing directly from his alteration of position under the inducement of the fraudulent representations of the defendants. The analogy of the assessment of damages in a contractual claim on the basis of cost of cure or difference in value springs to mind. In Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v. Forsyth, \[1996\] A.C. 344, 360G, Lord Mustill said, “**There are not two alternative measure of damages, as opposite poles, but only one; namely, the loss truly suffered by the promise.” In an action for deceit the price paid less the valuation at the transaction date is simply a method of measuring loss which will satisfactorily solve many cases. It is not a substitute for the single legal measure: it is an application of it.*** \[emphasis added\]

The decision in ***Goldstein v. Davison*** \[34\] is much more straight-forward. It demonstrates how damages are assessed, once again in a commercial context where a purchaser is buying the property for business reasons, on a diminution in value basis with consequential damages. Goldstein purchased from the elderly Ms Rae a property at 1480 Derry Road East, Mississauga, intending to rezone and develop it. Ms Rae and the listing agent, Dallas Budd, were aware of the fact that the City of Mississauga had recommended that the property be designated a heritage property under the *Ontario Heritage Act*. While the designation was pending, Budd presented, and Ms Rae accepted, an offer to purchase which provided for a VTB mortgage providing that Goldstein had the right to remove and demolish all existing structures. Ms Rae and Mr. Budd would have known that a heritage designation would preclude that right. After closing, Goldstein discovered the defect and attempted to develop a site plan for development that would satisfy the City’s heritage designation concerns but was unable to do so. He stopped paying the mortgage and an action resulted.

Ground J. considered whether rescission could be granted for an innocent misrepresentation; however, he observed that to grant rescission after the transaction has closed required the court finding a virtual failure of consideration or an *error* *in substantialibus*, neither of which he could find on the facts. He therefore allowed the action on the basis of negligent (not fraudulent) misrepresentation. The measure of damages was the difference in value between the purchase price and the value of the property as of the date of purchase knowing a heritage designation was pending. Consequential damages were awarded for the additional costs incurred by Goldstein in dealing with the heritage designation problem.\[35\]

The cost of repair may actually be closely connected to diminution in value. In fact, it often happens that an appraisal of actual market value of the property at the time of purchase with knowledge of the defect **must** take the cost of repair into consideration. In this next case, even after appeal, the trial judge observed that the appraisal report arrived at a market value by deducting the cost of remediation.

4\. In ***C.R.F. Holdings Ltd. v. Fundy Chemical International Ltd.*****,**\[36\] the seller of industrial land advised an interested buyer that the pile of slag on the property would make “excellent fill” and indicated he had used some for that purpose. The buyer purchased the property for $260,000 and the following year actually did use the slag for the purpose of fill. He spread it over the property and constructed a warehouse and storage yard over it. He transported leftover barrels of the slag to another property for storage. Then he learned that the slag was radioactive and subject to regulation under the Atomic Energy Control Act.

Litigation was commenced and at trial the plaintiffs sought the cost of remediation. Taylor J. agreed, saying, “\[w\]hile the court must, I think, assess damages with a view to making the plaintiffs whole in the sense of being in the *financial* position they would have been in had the land been free from contamination … that can in this case be done only by awarding the cost of placing the land in the *physical* condition which it ought to have been in had the representation been true.”\[37\] The Court of Appeal, however, ruled that the trial judge erred in this regard. He should have attempted to place the plaintiff “in the financial position in which he would have been had the representation not been made.”\[38\]Craig J.A. observed that the trial judge ought to have considered the extent to which the slag had reduced the value of the property.

Taylor J. subsequently re-assessed damages. He said,

*\[15\] After protracted consideration, I have concluded that I should take the direction of the learned judge on the appeal to mean this. The cost of remedying the problem hidden by the misrepresentation is not to be a governing consideration in assessing damages. The principal measure is instead to be that derived by deducting, from the amount in fact paid, the amount which would have been realized on the market had the plaintiff’s question been answered truthfully.*

The trial judge heard from plaintiff and defence appraisers as to what a purchaser would have been prepared to pay for the property containing radioactive slag and determined that the most an informed buyer would pay was $100,000. Taylor J. observed,

*\[33\] While the Court of Appeal has found cost of repair to be an inappropriate measure of the damage suffered in this case, it is plain from the appraisal evidence that repair cost is the most important factor involved in arriving at the sort of valuation on which I am instead to assess the principal damages. I proceed on the assumption that I must be entitled to take cost of repair into consideration in the valuation context.*

As for the $318,000 spent on spreading the slag and building a warehouse on it, Taylor J. said this was the most difficult aspect of the re-assessment because it, too, had to be done on a diminution in value basis. He agreed that one component of the calculation had to be deduction of the cost of clean-up. He determined that a prospective purchaser in December, 1975 (when the new warehouse was constructed) would have paid $250,000 plus any inflationary increase in the $100,000 land value.

For consequential damages, Taylor J. awarded $114,000 in extra inventory financing costs incurred since the date of trial due to the company’s inability to pledge real property security. He awarded $37,500 for diminution in value of the second property as a consequence of moving the barrelled slag there and infecting it with radioactivity. Taylor J.’s decision was upheld on further appeal.\[39\]

The following four cases deal with negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation leading to the purchase of damaged residential property, where judges seem quite uncomfortable with the diminution-in-value measure of damages.

1\. In ***Fors v. Overacker and Mallon***,\[40\] diminution-in-value damages were not even considered a possible remedy. Shortly after purchasing a home, Daniel Fors experienced several significant water problems related to the sump pump, the septic field, moisture in the basement and a leaking skylight. The sellers had completed an SPIS form which contained statements that were untrue, inaccurate or misleading, and the trial judge found negligent misrepresentation. Shaw J. held,

*\[168\] I accept that Mr. Fors would not have purchased the home if he had known of the water problems he was going to experience. He relied on the representations in the SPIS in deciding to buy the house. The representations were made negligently. Mr. Fors has suffered damages because of that negligence. He is entitled to be restored to the position he would have been in if Mr. and Mrs. Overacker had not breached their duty of care.*

On hearing evidence of the repairs that would be required, the trial judge awarded $112,830.50 including HST. He added $5,000 for Mr. Fors’ disappointment and inconvenience arising out of the negligent misrepresentation.

The Overackers third partied their listing agent. The trial judge, following *Krawchuk v. Scherbak*, considered him liable in professional negligence for advising the Overackers to not disclose certain information in the SPIS. He and his brokerage were liable to the plaintiffs one half ($42,459.75) the cost to repair the sump pump and basement flooding issues, but not the septic field and skylight issues because his negligent advice did not extend to those items.

2\. In ***Gemeinhardt v. Babic***,\[41\] diminution in value was considered as a remedy but was specifically rejected. The trial judge (the same Justice di Tomaso as in *Bowman v. Martineau*) awarded the cost of repair. Ms Gemeinhardt purchased a farm including farmhouse and outbuildings, for $950,000. The Babics took a VTB mortgage. Upon moving into the house, Ms Gemeinhardt discovered a number of serious problems, including sewage flowing into the basement, a broken furnace, mould, and structural deficiencies. These defects the Babics had covered up with whitewash and paint. The trial judge found the Babics liable for breach of the sale agreement and for negligent misrepresentation. He awarded $592,941.41 for repairs to the house and garage, as well as consequential damages of $30,700.82 which included lost rental income and costs relating to finding alternative mortgage funding. Liability was joint and several with the title insurer. He stated,

*\[576\] I have considered the issue of damages and specifically the cost of remediation relating to Ms Gemeinhardt’s claim against the Babics. I have reviewed all of the evidence including all the engineering and appraisal evidence. I identified the shortcomings in the appraisal evidence specifically and as a whole and concluded that the cost of remediation in all the circumstances was the most appropriate remedy. The evidence of Mr. Emmons was preferred to the evidence of others including Mr. Carruthers and Robin Jones, the appraiser called by Stewart Title for reasons stated. I am not satisfied that Ms Gemeinhardt would receive any “windfall” in this case. Rather, she is entitled to receive full value of the loss, in order to place her, as reasonably as possible, in the monetary position she would have been in if the Agreement of Purchase and Sale had been fulfilled: Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario v. Campbell-High (2002), 58 O.R. (3d) 321 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 16.*

*\[577\] I have considered the reasonableness of the cost of rectification. It is not unreasonable nor is it grossly disproportionate. I have considered the diminution of value to the property. The house and its additions and the garage – all in their present condition, have no value. They are to be demolished given the host of serious problems previously identified. Mr. Emmons’ evidence is the best evidence regarding the cost of remediation.*

Note, once again, the judge’s reference to reasonableness and proportionality. He recognized the damages were significant, but also recognized it was Gemeinhardt’s home.

3\. The trial judge in ***Gundersen v. Savoy***,\[42\] viewed damages in much the same way as Justice di Tomaso did in *Gemeinhardt* and *Bowman*. He found he could not rely on the appraisal evidence and substituted the cost of repairs. Ms Gundersen purchased a home from the Savoys and within several months discovered the structure was infected with so much mould and mildew it was uninhabitable. It had been the Savoys’ listing agent, who was also an old trusted family friend, who introduced Ms Gunderson to the property. By giving Ms Gundersen only select findings from a previous home inspection report, and by discouraging her from seeking her own home inspection, he led her to believe that the only problem with the home was the furnace.

The trial judge found the Savoys not liable; they had not made representations in respect of the house. The realtor, however, was found liable in fraudulent misrepresentation. Ms Gunderson sought $70,000 to reconstruct the home, but the realtor insisted there were no damages because Ms Gunderson had bought low and the market value of the home at the time of the purchase was the same as the purchase price. Alternatively, the realtor claimed damages were minimal; – between $4,750, to $18,000 on the basis that the remediation could have been carried out for that amount immediately after Gunderson discovered the problems.

The trial judge rejected the realtor’s expert’s appraisal because it presumed that Gunderson knew the cost of curing the problems. The trial judge undertook his own evaluation of value. He considered the fact that at the time of purchase the property had been on the market for close to three years. He considered that the only previous offer had been revoked because the home inspector had discovered the mould and mildew. The $178,000 Gundersen paid was therefore the market value absent the knowledge of mould. He continued,

*\[83\] That leaves me with only the various estimates to remediate (and in the case of one, reconstruct). While I agree that the applicable yardstick for measuring damages here is the difference (if any) between the price paid by the plaintiffs and the actual fair market value with full disclosure of the defects, in the absence of an appraisal that I accept, I conclude that I can use the estimates of remediation and reconstruction to determine if the actual market value (with disclosure) would have been less than what the plaintiffs paid.*

*…*

*\[86\] Thus, I conclude that, in 2007, the total cost of remediation of the mould and mildew and reconstruction of the water damaged and mould and mildew affected areas of the house would have been $36,000 plus the tax then applicable (GST of 6%) or $38,160.*

*\[87\] If anyone would have been prepared to buy this home with knowledge of its defects and have been prepared to remediate and renovate, so as to have the advantage of the size of the property, the location of the property, and the home in a reasonable state of repair … it is probable that it would not have been for more than something in the approximate amount of $179,000 less about $38,160. But, recognizing that bargaining over the price of a home is not exactly a scientific process, the plaintiffs or others may have been prepared to pay somewhat more than this difference to get the property or perhaps less so as to provide a buffer against unknown expenses for remediation and restoration.*

*\[88\] Recognizing these factors, I conclude that the home and property was probably worth about $141,000 in 2006 to a person with knowledge of the latent defects. Thus I would assess the plaintiffs’ general damages at $37,000.*

4\. The dynamics at play in ***Krawchuk v. Scherbak***\[43\] were such that the court was ultimately able to apply the diminution-in-value measure of damages and yet ensure that the purchaser had enough money in her hands at the end of the day to rebuild her home. This is a case where the buyer’s realtor was the listing agent. She owed an obligation to the buyer to disclose all material facts relevant to the purchase. It was Krawchuk’s first home purchase, and the agent failed to disclose issues with the foundation and the plumbing. She did not urge Krawchuk to write a home inspection condition into her offer. Krawchuk purchased without a home inspection and after closing discovered serious structural defects and plumbing issues.

The trial judge did not award the $191,414.94 Krawchuk claimed she would need to make full repairs because, in his view, (a) the measure of damages was diminution in value, and (b) she failed to mitigate by rescinding the contract. With no evidence of fair market value as of the date of purchase, he awarded the same damages her title insurer had offered: purchase price of $110,100, less lot value of $41,000, plus $29,318 cost of removing and remediating soil to allow for building, plus $4,952.54 cost of a soils engineering report, plus $2,371.78 moving expenses, for a total of $105,742.32. In other words, he awarded many consequential damages but not the cost of repair. He added $5,000 for emotional upset and loss of health. The Court of Appeal did not disturb the trial judge’s damage award but corrected his denial of the private insurance exception, which entitled her to receive both the title insurer’s settlement and the trial judgment, which gave her enough to make full repairs.

The following three cases demonstrate that judges sometimes employ a hybrid of cost-of-repair and diminution-in-value damages to arrive at what they feel is a suitable solution to the problem of the plaintiff’s property loss.

1\. In ***Sedgemore v. Block Bros. Realty***,\[44\] the plaintiffs purchased a 9-acre hobby farm on Vancouver Island. They were introduced to the property by the listing agent. Before offering to buy the property, the plaintiffs learned that the water supply in the area could be a problem and asked the listing agent about it. She responded that the well was 300 feet deep and its rate of flow was 3 ½ gallons per minute. On the plaintiffs’ second visit to the property they observed a water cistern and inquired about it. The listing agent told them the owner had run out of water once when 30 people camped there for a family reunion. After a third visit the plaintiffs offered to purchase. When they moved to the property, they experienced a serious water shortage. They had to store water in the bathtub to flush the toilet. There was not enough water to raise animals, leave alone wash their clothes. They drilled a new well and installed a new pumping system, but there was simply no water.

At trial, the court found the seller 75% liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and the realtor 25% liable in negligence. While making oral submissions addressing remedies, the plaintiffs advised that they sought rescission as against the seller. The court granted rescission and cancelled the mortgage. It ordered return of the down payment less real estate commission. It ordered the realtor to disgorge the real estate commission. It also allowed recovery for incidental or consequential losses, agreed to be $8,475.79.

2\. In ***Neill v. Trenholm***,\[45\] the trial judge found the defendants liable to the plaintiff for negligent misrepresentation. They had provided the purchaser with a Property Condition Disclosure Statement and answered “no” to questions about water and moisture problems in the basement or crawl space of their home. The home was located in a neighbourhood known for its high water table; the plaintiff was new to the area and was not aware of the fact. For damages, the judge acknowledged the tortious measure of damages: the amount of money required to put the plaintiff in the position that he would have occupied, not if the statement had been true, but if the statement had not been made. He heard evidence from an appraiser who did a “drive-by” appraisal suggesting a loss in value of $5,000 to $7,000 but found he could not rely on it. He heard from a builder who estimated that to install a new concrete basement under the house would cost $36,000. The trial judge awarded half this amount to address the betterment, and awarded consequential damages as well.

3\. In ***Lunney v. Kuntova, Badre and Re/Max***,\[46\] the purchaser discovered three years after closing that the stone rubble foundation of her 90-year-old home was past its useful life and was crumbling. Power J. found no liability on the defendants but went on to consider damages. He heard evidence that she had purchased the house for $180,000, had rented it out for two years, and that its market value was $340,000 at the time of trial. The bare lot value was $275,000. Ms Lunney sought $275,000 to replace the foundation. Power J. saw the expenditure of $275,000 as a waste of money and awarded $65,000, the difference between market value and lot value.

Principles that I take away from these cases where a negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation has induced the purchase of defective property are:

(a) Due to the foundational cases of *Derry v. Peek* and *Esso v. Mardon* where economic loss is the subject of the litigation, damages default to the diminution-in-value measure of damages;

(b) Where residential property is concerned, however, the cost of repair measure is often more appropriate;

(c) The cost of repair may be the only way to assess the diminution in value;

(d) Consequential damages may be significant. They are similar to a personal injury assessment of damages, “You should look into the future so as to forecast what would have been likely to happen …”; and

(e) The remedy of rescission may be an optional remedy.

**(3)** **SOLICITOR NEGLIGENCE CAUSING TITLE DEFECTS**

I come now to the category of cases that Ms Martineau on appeal suggested was appropriate because they support the diminution-in-value measure of damages. This category has to do with title defects, not physical damage to property, and not misrepresentation as to quality. The Court of Appeal agreed with Ms Martineau because the solicitors did not cause the defects in the property, just as Ms Martineau did not cause the defects in the property.

What is surprising is that, although they purport to apply the diminution-in-value measure of damages, these cases discuss, and in the case of *Kienzle v. Stringer* award, cost-of-repair damages, i.e., the cost of repairing title. They are very similar to property loss cases inasmuch as the resulting awards are a mixture of diminution-in-value and cost-of-repair damages, depending on the circumstances.

I start with the ***Messineo v. Beale***\[47\] decision because many subsequent cases follow “the rule in *Messineo v. Beale.*” In March of 1969, Mr. Messineo of Rochester, New York, purchased from Miss Marjorie Finley some 518 acres of raw land on three parcels measured by metes-and-bounds on and around Upper Rideau Lake. He purchased it for his brothers and sisters and for a bargain price. Rideau Lake is on the Rideau Canal connecting Ottawa and Kingston, providing access to the St. Lawrence River. The area is sometimes referred to as Ontario’s “other” cottage country. Messineo purchased the acreage for $45,000, payable $5,000 down and the balance 6 months after closing to allow for a surveyor to prepare a survey. The surveyor discovered a 54-acre deficiency, and the price was reduced $1,500. When the six months expired, the surveyor had not yet completed his work and Messineo withheld $8,000. When the survey was completed, Messineo discovered that Murch’s Point, a peninsula jutting into the lake 1,500 feet, had not been in the holdings of Miss Finley. He advised he was not going to pay the remaining $8,000. He sued his real estate lawyer, Mr. Beale, for the value of Murch’s Point, which he assessed as $25,000 in the claim initially but later raised to $76,500. Mr. Beale, he argued, should have alerted him to the fact that Miss Finley did not own Murch’s Point.

At trial it was clear that Mr. Messineo wanted from Mr. Beale the money’s worth of Murch’s Point so he could purchase it. Mr. Beale argued that damages against negligent solicitors were measured by diminution of value. Land values had risen substantially since Mr. Messineo’s purchase and Mr. Messineo had not lost anything. The trial judge found Mr. Beale negligent in failing to discover that Miss Finley did not own Murch’s Point and in failing to advise Mr. Messineo that his purchase would not include it. His negligence amounted to a breach of contract. He awarded nominal damages of $500 (the account of his solicitor having been $479.50 plus $137.50 disbursements). On appeal by Mr. Messineo, Arnup J.A. said,

*\[14\] **In my view it is obvious that the defendant’s breach of duty was not the cause of the plaintiff’s getting no title to Murch’s Point.** The vendor had not title to Murch’s Point, and could give none. Nothing the defendant could have done would have changed that situation.*

*\[15\] It is to be observed that if the defendant had discovered, before closing, that Miss Finley had no title to Murch’s Point, it would have been his duty to communicate that fact at once to his clients. Their options then would have been to refuse to close, to close and take title to what Miss Finley could convey, or to try to negotiate, once more, for a lower price. In the circumstances it would not, I think, have been a case for specific performance with abatement.*

*\[16\] There was evidence that the plaintiffs got a “pretty good buy” at $43,500 for what they actually got title to. This was stated by the plaintiffs’ own expert witness, in answer to a question from the trial judge. (Of course the plaintiffs have actually paid only $35,500.) A few months later they listed the property for sale at $125,000 but have not sold it; it was listed only once, and apparently for a short period only.*

*\[17\] After reviewing the authorities in Ontario and England, the trial judge came to the conclusion that the measure of damages was the actual loss sustained by the plaintiffs arising from the defendant’s negligence. He was referred to virtually all of the relevant cases. I agree with his result, but would state the principle in these words. **The measure of damages is the difference in money between the amount paid by the client to the vendor, and the market value of the land to which the client received a good title**.* \[emphasis added\]

The first highlighted sentence in this judgment is the launching point for the Court of Appeal’s discussion of “causation” in respect of damages in *Bowman v. Martineau*. Note that Arnup J.A. is referring to Mr. Beale’s liability for the damages being claimed. He is saying that Mr. Beale did not cause Mr. Messineo to “lose” Murch’s Point. In fact, there was no loss to Mr. Messineo at all, except that Mr. Beale should have alerted Mr. Messineo to the fact that Murch’s Point was not included in Miss Finley’s property holdings.

A solicitor negligence case reaching the Court of Appeal shortly after *Messineo* was ***Kienzle v. Stringer***.\[48\] In *Kienzle v. Stringer,* due to Mr. Stringer’s error, Mr. Kienzle did not have clear title to his farm in the County of Oxford. Not knowing of the defect, Mr. Kienzle agreed to sell the farm to a purchaser and awaited closing. He did not renew a lease of neighbouring lands which he had farmed to augment his income at the Oxford farm. Meanwhile, he purchased another farm in Kincardine, conditional upon sale of the Oxford farm. When the defect in title was discovered, both the sale of the Oxford farm and the Kincardine farm collapsed. In the litigation that followed, the trial judge felt bound by *Messineo v. Beale* to limit the award to the difference between the contract price and the market value of what was received. Since Kienzle had been deprived of the interest of one of his sisters, he was awarded the sum of $15,509.48, which was what he needed to purchase her interest and clear the title. He was also awarded return of the legal fees paid to the lawyer who made the error; and legal fees paid to another solicitor who attempted to unravel the title problems.

Mr. Kienzle appealed, seeking additional damages for (a) loss of income on the Oxford farm when it was no longer a viable operation without the additional leased land, and (b) damages for the lost purchase of the Kincardine farm when the value of that land had risen substantially. Zuber J.A. awarded an additional $10,750 for loss of profit in farming the Oxford farm. He did not, however, award a further $20,000 for his loss of the Kincardine farm purchase, finding it was not a “reasonably foreseeable” loss. Wilson J.A. issued a dissenting opinion, being of the view that loss of the Kincardine farm *was* a reasonably foreseeable loss when a solicitor’s opinion is that the client has “good and marketable” title.

In the course of setting out his reasons, Zuber J.A. recognized the limitations of *Messineo v. Beale* and said,

*\[12\] … “Messineo v. Beale decides only that the defendant did not cause the plaintiff any damage. Since the vendor did not own Murch’s Point, the defendant’s solicitor did not cause its loss.”*

*\[13\] It appears that in many of the cases, as a matter of fact, the damages amount to no more than the difference between the purchase price and the market value of what is received, but I find no case binding on this Court compelling the acceptance of such a measure as a rule of law.*

*\[14\] In my view the law should not support a rule which gives exceptional protection to solicitors from the general principles of damages which flow from either contractual or tortious responsibilities.*

In the final analysis, while the Court of Appeal might have thought it awarded diminution-in-value damages, it actually ordered the cost of repair; – the fees of the second lawyer to correct the title, the amount of money to buy out the sister’s remaining interest in the property, plus consequential damages.

In ***Toronto Industrial Leaseholds Ltd. v. Posesorski*****,**\[49\] the Posesorskis purchased an industrial property in 1979 for $325,000. It was subject to a long-term lease to 1984, registered on title, with an option to renew for an additional 10 years at rent substantially below market rents. The lawyer acting for the Posesorskis on the purchase did not notice the 10-year option to renew and there was no problem until the tenant gave notice of its intention to renew the lease. The Posesorskis and their lawyer, and subsequently their new lawyer, disputed the validity of the option. The dispute went to litigation, where the Posesorskis’ solicitor admitted his negligence in failing to advise them about the option to renew. Later in the litigation, the lawyer’s insurer negotiated a settlement with the tenant for $260,000 and extricated the Posesorskis from the option. The Posesorskis sold the property in late 1984 for $700,000. Ten years later, the matter reached the Court of Appeal.

Doherty J.A. established at the outset that an award of damages against a solicitor should, to the extent possible, restore the defendants to the position in which he or she would have been had their solicitor properly discharged his duties. Here, the solicitor’s error caused the defendants to enter a transaction into which they otherwise would not have entered.

Doherty J.A. identified three types of loss flowing from the solicitor’s negligence: (1) the clients paid more for the property than it was worth; (2) they lost the use of the funds represented by that overpayment for five years; and (3) they incurred additional costs and expenses such as legal fees of lawyers retained to extricate them from the original lawyer’s error, the cost of following the new lawyers’ advice, and the cost of maintaining the vacant property.

In his discussion about the overpayment of the property, Doherty J.A. followed Zuber J.A.’s reasoning in *Messineo v. Beal*, as echoed by the Court of Appeal in *Bowman v. Martineau*, concluding,

*\[77\] … The clients were not deprived of the property minus the option because of Mr. Solway’s negligence. The property without the option could not have been conveyed to the clients. As in Messineo, the solicitor’s negligence caused the clients to complete a transaction they would not have entered into had the solicitor done his job properly. As in Messineo, the clients are entitled to recover the overpayment, if any, resulting from the solicitor’s failure to alert them to the “defect” in the property. The overpayment is the difference between the price actually paid for the property and the market value of the property with the option.*

He agreed with the trial judge that the Posesorskis paid $110,000 more for the property than it was worth at the time of the purchase, all because of the unfortunate option in the lease. In deciding this way, Doherty J.A. specifically avoided calculating the loss as the cost of removing the option, which was the $260,000 the lawyer’s insurer had paid to buy out the 10-year low-rent lease. That would have been a “cost of repair” measure of damages, and would have resulted, in his view, in significant overpayment.

As for the loss of use of the funds represented by the overpayment of $110,000, Doherty J.A. applied an interest rate of 15% from the date of purchase to the date of sale: $81,000. Finally, for consequential damages he awarded $39,422.57, which was for legal fees in respect of the new lawyer retained to extricate the Posesorskis from the lease, plus the cost of maintaining the vacant building until it could be sold.

Galligan J.A.’s dissenting opinion was that the cost of reinstatement was the more appropriate choice because the lawyer’s insurer had paid $260,000 to extricate the Posesorskis from the 10-year low-rent lease. The $260,000 would have *exactly* compensated the Posesorskis, since that is how the error was actually dealt with.

Principles to take away from these few solicitor negligence cases are:

(a) Diminution-in-value damages are the default measure of damages unless the court finds that only cost-of-repair damages will appropriately compensate the plaintiff.

(b) Diminution in value is not a rule of law; cost-of-repair damages may be granted, in which case the negligent solicitor must pay to un-do or repair the error;

(c) The diminution-in-value measure of damages tends to give exceptional protection to the defendant. The law should not support a rule which gives exceptional protection to a type of tortfeasor such as a lawyer or a realtor);

(d) Diminution in value may be calculated by assessing the cost of repair;

(e) Consequential damages may be awarded, in which case the court will assess the reasonable foreseeability of the loss.

In *Kienzle v. Stringer*, the solicitor created the title defect and paid the cost of repairing it, plus consequential damages. In *Posesorski*, the solicitor did not create the title defect but induced the Posesorskis to purchase not knowing of the defect. He did pay for its repair through his insurance coverage; somehow the Posesorskis had to be extricated from the effects of his error. They were then awarded an additional $110,000 in diminution-in-value damages, plus consequential damages.

**CONCLUSION**

I hope that this review has helped shed some light on the various factors that courts will consider when determining how to quantify damages. While there are principles that help identify whether quantification is more appropriate on a diminution in value or a cost of repair approach, it will come down to the specific facts of any given case. If you do find yourself involved in an action where the quantification of damages is in dispute, it is very important that you retain a lawyer who is well versed in this area of practice.

**Categories:** Municipal Litigation

**Tags:** Court of Appeal, Damages, Negligent Misrepresentation, Real Estate Negligence

---

### [Partners Jim Davidson and Paul Cahill Present at the Ontario Bar Association](https://dcmlaw.ca/partners-jim-davidson-and-paul-cahill-present-at-the-ontario-bar-association/)

**Published:** June 10, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP partners Jim Davidson and Paul Cahill joined the faculty of the Ontario Bar Association's Anatomy of a Trial: Telling Your Trial Story program. Jim presented the defendant's opening statement and Paul conducted the cross-examination of the defence engineer, sharing trial advocacy insights with litigators at every level.

**Content:**

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is proud to announce our partners, [Jim Davidson](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson/) and [Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/) will be faculty members at the prestigious [Ontario Bar Association](https://www.linkedin.com/company/ontario-bar-association/)‘s “Anatomy of a Trial: Telling Your Trial Story” CLE program on June 13-14, 2024.

Jim Davidson will be presenting the Opening Statement of the Defendant. Paul Cahill will be conducting the Cross Examination of the Defence Engineer.

Lawyers of all levels, from the new litigator to the seasoned veteran, will benefit from this practical and insightful program.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Speaking Engagement

---

### [Building Permit Title Insurance Claims - Part 1](https://dcmlaw.ca/building-permit-title-insurance-claims-part-1/)

**Published:** July 5, 2024
**Author:** David Morin

**Excerpt:** Title insurance claims are on the rise in Ontario, and open building permits are one of the most common triggers. In the first of a series, our Insurance Law group explains what a title insurance policy actually covers, how covered-risk wording is interpreted, and why one Toronto homeowner's building permit claim was denied.

**Content:**

Our Insurance Law group at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP has been seeing a steady increase in title insurance claims. Typically, these claims are made by homeowners that purchased title insurance at the time they purchased their home. As title insurance has been purchased on most residential transactions in Ontario for over 30 years it is not surprising that we are seeing more homeowners making claims. This is the first in a series of commentaries designed to help the reader get a better understanding of the policy that was sold, and delivered to you, by your lawyer after your closing.

This first (and the next) commentary will focus on an area where we see many claims – “Building Permit” claims. If you work in the personal injury field, as I do, I believe you will find these commentaries interesting. We often find ourselves in the situation where our clients are compelled to make home modifications to accommodate a disability sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Once home modifications are commenced by a contractor, we are often advised that work cannot move forward due to *Building Code* (Ontario) issues which make all, or part, of the structure potentially unsafe. If your client has title insurance, and you discover an open building permit, and a municipal inspection leads to work orders or an Order to Comply under the *Code*, do continue to read on into these commentaries.

One of the first cases in Ontario to consider title insurance coverage involved a very common building permit situation. A couple in Toronto (the “MacDonalds”) purchased a two-storey home and a title insurance policy in 2006. A prior owner of the home had removed ‘load bearing’ structural walls on the ground floor seeking the ‘open concept’ layout that has become popular. In 2013 the MacDonalds realized their home was unsafe, and likely had been since 2006 or before. An Engineers Report confirmed it was unsafe and the City of Toronto issued an order (a “Work Order”) requiring that the McDonalds ‘shore up’ the missing structure that had been removed without the prior owner obtaining a building permit.

When they bought the home their lawyer sold them a title insurance policy from Chicago Title, one of the three US based companies that enjoy 95% of the Canadian market. Chicago denied their claim. The MacDonald’s policy included the following as a “Covered Risk”:

*“16. You are forced to remove your existing structure — other than a boundary wall or fence — because any portion of it was built without obtaining a building permit from the proper government office or agency.”*

Chicago Title took the position that the City of Toronto was not forcing them to ‘remove’ anything. The City was requiring the MacDonald’s to ‘shore up’ the structure because too much had already been ‘removed’. The MacDonald’s had done the necessary ‘shore up’ work before claiming under their Chicago Title policy.

In the Superior Court MacDonald, J. (no relation to the Insured) agreed with Chicago Title and denied coverage:

*“…the city’s order did not force the \[MacDonalds\]either to remove or to fully repair their home. All that the order forced them to do was to temporarily support the floor structure…”*

The Court additionally held that there was no coverage as the MacDonald’s ‘title’ or ownership interest was not affected by the City’s Work order as work orders are not registered in the Registry office against the title:

*“Insurance is provided for the covered risks as described, but only if they affect the applicants’ title. The applicants own the entire right, title and interest in the lands and premises just as they did before they knew of the deficient and dangerous nature of what they purchased. Their title is as marketable now as it always was, although it is marketable now subject to any duty to disclose the nature of the home, and thus for an amount less than they paid for it.” (emphasis added).*

The MacDonald’s appealed.

There is an old maxim that “hard cases make bad law”. The Court of Appeal clearly sympathized with the MacDonald’s plight but, with respect, they interpreted Chicago’s policy in a way that, in hindsight, seems forced. I say in hindsight because as I will discuss later most of the Insurers have clarified their policies since MacDonald.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the Superior Court and found coverage for the MacDonald’s under Chicago’s Clause 11:

*“Your Title is unmarketable, which allows another person to refuse to perform a contract to purchase, to lease, or to make a mortgage loan.”*

The Supreme Court of Canada denied Chicago’s application for leave and real estate lawyers were left a bit “dazed and confused” wondering whether Work Orders were “title matters”. A brief explanation.

In the US title insurance was, and is, heavily regulated by Federal and State regulators. State Insurance Commissioners regulated what the polices could cover and how much insurers could charge in premium. Those policies typically covered only about 4-6 risks (not unlike today’s Commercial policies) all of which were strictly related to “title” matters. When title insurance became popular in Canada in the 1990’s the American forms of (residential) policy were undergoing significant revision.

First American (FCT in Canada) had decided to significantly expand the coverage it offered residential policyholders. They had the regulators and industry associations approve what they called the “EAGLE” policy. Regulators let them charge more for this extended coverage. Instead of 4-6 Covered Risks these extended coverage policies now have grown to 20 or 30 Covered Risks, many of which are not strictly “title” risks, they are risks, like Work Orders, that effect the Land (a defined term in the Policy that includes the house) but may not effect the “title”. The only residential policies that have been sold in Canada since 1995 (including the one the MacDonalds bought through their lawyer in 2006) are these extended coverage policies.

Regrettably Canadian regulators have not seen the need to standardize these policies. There is one company that issues a policy wholly different in form from the other three. This needs to change. I can take you back to the MacDonald’s situation to illustrate why. The MacDonalds could not get coverage because the City’s Work Order ‘forced’ them to ‘shore up’ the unsafe wall and Chicago’s policy covered only forced *removal*. Other title policies available at the time covered insureds ‘forced’ to remove *or remedy* their existing structure. Those two words *“or remedy”* would have been very helpful to the MacDonalds.

As life insurance policies cover much more than death, the residential title insurance policies sold in Canada cover much more than title. In my next Commentary I will have more to say about Building Permit coverage and a related coverage known as “Local Authority Search” coverage.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Building Permit, Title Insurance

---

### [Managing Partner David Morin Serves 20 Years as Deputy Judge](https://dcmlaw.ca/managing-partner-david-morin-serves-20-years-as-deputy-judge/)

**Published:** July 9, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is proud to recognize Managing Partner David Morin, who received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for twenty years of service as a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court in the Central East Region. The post also looks at what deputy judges do and at Ontario's busiest civil court, which handles close to half of the province's civil cases.

**Content:**

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP proudly recognizes the dedication of our Managing Partner, David Morin to the administration of justice by his longstanding service as a deputy judge in the Small Claims Court of Ontario.

In May, 2024, David received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in recognition of his commitment to the administration of justice by serving for twenty years (20) as a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court in the Central East Region.

The Courthouses of Central East Regional include: Barrie Courthouse, Bracebridge Courthouse, Cobourg Courthouse, Lindsay Courthouse, Newmarket Courthouse, (Oshawa) Durham Consolidated Courthouse, and Peterborough Courthouse.

The [Small Claims Court](https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/small-claims-court/) branch of the Superior Court of Justice is an extraordinarily busy court in Ontario, handling nearly half of all civil claims in the province. Approximately 45% of all civil cases heard in Ontario are commenced in the Small Claims Court.

The Small Claims Court provides an efficient and cost-effective forum for Ontarians to bring or defend civil claims seeking up to $35,000 in monetary or property damages.

Typically, [deputy judges](https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/judges/about/#Deputy_Judges_of_the_Small_Claims_Court) preside over proceedings in the Small Claims Court. Deputy judges are senior lawyers appointed for a three-year term by the Regional Senior Judge, with the approval of the Attorney General. The [Small Claims Court Administrative Judge](https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/judges/current/provincial-deputy/) may also hear Small Claims Court proceedings pursuant to s. 24(2) of the *[Courts of Justice Act](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c43)*. In addition, all Superior Court judges are also judges of the Small Claims Court.

Congratulations again David on this milestone achievement.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Community Involvement

---

### [Denied Long-Term Disability Benefits in Ontario: How to Fight Back and Get Reinstated](https://dcmlaw.ca/reinstating-long-term-disability-benefits-a-comprehensive-guide/)

**Published:** July 10, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** A denial or cut-off of your long-term disability benefits is not the end of the road, but the clock is often already running. This guide explains why insurers deny and terminate LTD claims, including the 'own occupation' to 'any occupation' switch at two years, the two-year deadline to sue that an internal appeal does not pause, and the steps to fight back and get your benefits reinstated.

**Content:**

Few letters land harder than one telling you your long-term disability benefits have been denied or cut off, especially when you cannot work and were counting on that income to get by. The good news is that a denial is not the end of the road, and you have more options than the insurer’s internal appeal. The hard part is that there are deadlines you cannot afford to miss, and the clock is often already running. This guide explains why long-term disability claims get denied, the two-year deadline that catches claimants off guard, and how to fight back and get your benefits reinstated.

## What Long-Term Disability Benefits Are

Long-term disability (LTD) benefits replace a portion of your income, often 60% to 70%, when illness, injury, or a mental health condition keeps you from working. They usually start once your short-term disability or EI sickness benefits run out, and they come either through an employer’s group plan or a policy you bought yourself. One detail that surprises people: if you paid the premiums yourself, your benefits are generally tax-free; if your employer paid them, the benefits are usually taxable.

## Why Insurers Deny or Cut Off LTD Claims

Understanding why a claim was denied is the first step to challenging it. The most common reasons are:

- **The change in definition at two years.** This is the single most common point at which benefits stop. Most policies pay for the first 24 months if you cannot do your **own occupation**, then switch to a tougher **any occupation** test, under which you must show you cannot do any job for which you are reasonably suited by your education, training, and experience. Many claimants are cut off at this changeover even though their condition has not improved.
- **Thin or diagnosis-only medical evidence.** Insurers want to see functional limitations, what you can and cannot do and for how long, not just a diagnosis.
- **An insurer’s medical exam (IME)** that conflicts with your treating doctors.
- **Surveillance or social media** taken out of context to suggest you are more capable than you are.
- **Policy exclusions or pre-existing-condition clauses.**
- **Missed deadlines** in the policy, such as a proof-of-claim window.
- **Offsets**, including CPP disability benefits, which most policies require you to apply for and which usually reduce your LTD payment if approved.

## The Deadline That Catches Claimants Off Guard

This is the most important thing on this page. In Ontario, you generally have **two years from the denial** to start a lawsuit against your insurer, under the Limitations Act, 2002. The trap is that many people spend months in the insurer’s internal appeal process while that two-year court deadline keeps running in the background.

Insurers are not neutral decision-makers, and an internal appeal does not stop the limitation clock. Some claimants only realize too late that the appeal they were promised would be “reconsidered” was also quietly using up their time to sue. The exact moment the clock starts can depend on the wording of your denial letter and your policy, and some policies even try to impose their own shorter deadline. Because the timing is fact-specific and the stakes are your entire claim, the safe approach is simple: treat the two-year period as running from your denial, calendar it now, and get legal advice early rather than assuming an appeal protects you.

## Internal Appeal or Lawsuit?

When they deny or terminate benefits, insurers usually point you to an internal appeal, often with a deadline of 60 to 180 days to submit more documents. An internal appeal can occasionally work when the problem is a fixable gap, such as a missing report. But the insurer controls that process, appeals are frequently unsuccessful, and their biggest risk is eating up your limitation period.

The external remedy is a lawsuit. It is decided by a court rather than the insurer, and it opens the door to negotiation and mediation, where most LTD disputes actually resolve. In some cases you can start a claim to protect your deadline while you keep submitting medical evidence and pursue a settlement. (If you are unionized, your dispute may have to go through labour arbitration instead, depending on your collective agreement.) The key point is to get advice on which path fits your situation before you commit to an appeal.

## What to Do If Your LTD Benefits Are Denied

1. **Get the denial in writing.** If the insurer told you by phone, ask for a written decision. It sets out their reasons and starts the clock on key dates.
2. **Request your claim file and your policy.** You are entitled to the adjuster’s notes, internal medical reviews, and any surveillance, and the exact policy wording matters.
3. **Build the right medical evidence.** Ask your treating providers for function-focused reports: your restrictions and limitations, why they prevent your own occupation (or any occupation after the changeover), and your treatment compliance. A diagnosis alone is rarely enough.
4. **Keep treating and documenting.** Stay under medical care, follow reasonable advice, and, for conditions that come and go, keep a short symptom and activity diary.
5. **Confirm your limitation period now.** Do not assume the insurer’s appeal deadline is your only deadline.
6. **Get legal advice promptly**, ideally before you submit an internal appeal, so your strategy and timing are set from the start.

## How We Help Reinstate Benefits and Recover What You Are Owed

Insurers owe their policyholders a duty of good faith in how they handle claims. When that duty is ignored, our team steps in to hold them to it. We review your policy and the denial, advance your claim, deal with the insurer on your behalf, and pursue your unpaid arrears, the reinstatement of your benefits, or a lump-sum settlement. In cases where an insurer has acted in bad faith, the court can also award additional damages.

Our results reflect that approach. In one matter, our lawyers recovered $130,000 for a teacher near retirement age whose claim was first denied and then settled shortly after litigation began. In another, we had a disabled professional’s benefits reinstated and recovered $97,000 in arrears and legal costs, again shortly after starting litigation. Many claims resolve through negotiation or mediation, without the need for a trial.

## Frequently Asked Questions

**How long do I have to sue after an LTD denial?** Generally two years from the denial in Ontario. Do not count on an internal appeal to extend it, and get legal advice early so your deadline is assessed on your specific facts.

**Should I file the insurer’s internal appeal?** It depends on why you were denied. An appeal can help when the issue is a missing document, but the insurer controls the process and the delay can put your court deadline at risk. Speak to a lawyer before you appeal.

**Why were my benefits cut off at exactly two years?** That is usually the changeover from the “own occupation” test to the stricter “any occupation” test. Insurers often terminate benefits at this point, and updated, function-based medical evidence is key to challenging it.

**Will CPP disability affect my LTD?** Most policies require you to apply for CPP disability, and if you are approved, it usually offsets your LTD payment rather than adding to it.

**Are my LTD benefits taxable?** Generally tax-free if you paid the premiums yourself, and taxable if your employer paid them.

**What can I recover?** Past unpaid benefits (arrears), reinstatement of ongoing benefits or a lump-sum settlement, and, where the insurer acted in bad faith, additional damages.

## Talk to a Long-Term Disability Lawyer

If your benefits have been denied or cut off, the worst thing you can do is wait. Our [long-term disability lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/long-term-disability-insurance-lawyers/) can review your denial, protect your deadline, and fight to get your benefits reinstated and your arrears paid. [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) for a consultation and let us help you take the next step.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Long-Term Disability

---

### [Huether v Sharpe: Continuous Liability of Municipalities in their Regulation of Residential Construction](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/)

**Published:** July 12, 2024
**Author:** Peter Reinitzer

**Excerpt:** In Huether v Sharpe, the Township of McMurrich Monteith argued that negligence claims over a 1980s home build were barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period. The Superior Court disagreed: because the Township never closed the building permit, its duty to monitor the construction was ongoing, so the limitation period did not bar the claim and the summary judgment motion was dismissed. The decision is under appeal.

**Content:**

**Municipal Regulation of Residential Construction**

The *Building Code Act[**\[i\]**](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn1)* and the Ontario *Building Code[**\[ii\]**](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn2)* comprise a regime that both empowers and requires municipalities to regulate residential construction. The purpose of this regime is to protect the health and safety of the public by enforcing safety standards for all construction standards.[\[iii\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn3) With the coming into force of this regime on December 31, 1975, the Province of Ontario made the policy decision for municipalities to appoint inspectors who will inspect construction projects and enforce the applicable construction standards.[\[iv\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn4)

This policy decision is important because, in requiring municipalities to enforce construction standards, the owners of a home – which includes subsequent purchasers – may rely on the expectation that the municipality has not only regulated the construction but has shown reasonable care in doing so to ensure the health and safety of the home’s occupants.[\[v\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn5) This private law duty of care is occasionally referred to as the “duty to inspect,” and the ensuing negligence is often referred to as “negligent inspection,” but the duty extends beyond negligently-performed inspections. For example, courts have found municipalities to have fallen below the standard of care required of them in a) failing to adequately review a building permit application; [\[vi\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn6) b) issuing a building permit that had clearly deficient plans attached; [\[vii\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn7) and c) failing to inspect certain elements of the construction.[\[viii\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn8)

**Enter the Ultimate Limitation Period**

The *Limitations Act, 2002[**\[ix\]**](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn9)* was amended in 2004 to include the Ultimate Limitation Period, which bars claims (with some exceptions such as proceedings based on sexual assault or to recover money owing to the Crown) if at least fifteen years have elapsed since the day on which the act or omission on which the claim is based took place.[\[x\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn10) Pursuant to section 24 of the *Limitations Act*, causes of action that were not discovered prior to the 2004 inclusion of the Ultimate Limitation Period were deemed to have taken place on January 1, 2004, such that Ultimate Limitation Period would only operate to bar claims as of January 1, 2019.

In *Breen*, the subject matter of the negligence took place in the 1980s and 1990s. The claim was brought in 2014, well over fifteen years after the alleged wrongdoing had taken place. However, section 24 of the *Limitations Act* operated to bar the application of the Ultimate Limitation Period, which played no role in the litigation.

No such exception applied in the case of *Huether v Sharpe*,[\[xi\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn11) the statement of claim for which was issued in 2022. *Huether* involves claims of misrepresentation against the seller of a home, professional negligence against a real estate agent, and negligence in the regulation of construction against the Township of McMurrich Monteith. The Township brought a summary judgment on the basis that the claims of negligence against it are all based on acts or omissions that took place in the late 1980s between the time the building permit application was issued in 1985 and 1988 when it said it closed the permit and the home’s construction had been completed. The Plaintiffs resisted the motion on the basis that the Township had never closed the building permit and that therefore the Township’s obligations and its negligence were ongoing such that operation of the Ultimate Limitation Period was excepted in accordance with s. 15(6)(a) of the *Limitations Act*.

In her Reasons for Decision, the motions judge rejected the Township’s assertion that it had closed the permit or that construction on the home was complete.[\[xii\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn12) She found that there was no evidence that certain inspections been conducted, including the foundation, HVAC, and interior finishes. She further found that there was no evidence that the municipality’s Chief Building Official contacted the owner/builder regarding the status of the project or the outstanding inspections.

The motions judge then proceeded to consider whether the Township had an ongoing duty to monitor the construction, relying heavily on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in *Breen*, from which she emphasized the following principles:

1. In implementing a building by-law, issuing a building permit, and inspecting the home, the municipality owed a duty of care to the home’s occupants, including subsequent purchasers.
2. Inspections are not optional. Once a permit is granted, the municipality has an obligation to inspect the building to comply with the building code regime. Anything less would make the whole building permit and inspection process meaningless.
3. While the municipality’s choice not to inspect the project on a daily basis was reasonable, failing to conduct any inspection from 1991 to 1993 was not.[\[xiii\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn13)

The motions judge held that, because the construction still had outstanding inspections, and because the municipality had not determined that the building was substantially complete and closed the permit, it had a duty to continuously monitor the open permit file to follow up with the permit holder regarding the state of construction.[\[xiv\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn14) The motions judge explained that the municipality had an array of powers available to it to ensure that it was carrying out its obligations under the Building Code regime beyond mere inspection, including revoking the permit if the permit holder refused to cooperate with the municipal building department. As a result, the Township had an ongoing duty to monitor the open permit file until it determined that the building was substantially complete and it satisfied the conditions for occupancy,[\[xv\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn15) and the motions judge dismissed the Township’s summary judgment motion accordingly.

**Conclusion**

The motion judge’s finding that the Township’s private law duty is informed by the powers and obligations bestowed on the Township by the building code regime. The Township’s argument that it could only be held liable for singular acts of negligence at discrete inspections was at odds with the purpose of the *BCA*, namely to ensure the health and safety of a building’s occupants. The Building Code regime does *not*, for example, simply direct municipalities to inspect when called and nothing more. The Court of Appeal’s remarks in *Breen* are instructive; while the Township in that case was not expected to inspect a project daily, *doing nothing* for two years was held to be unreasonable. As the motion judge pointed out in *Huether*, the Building Code regime supplied the Township with powers it could use in the event that a construction project stalled, including revoking the building permit.[\[xvi\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_edn16) In the within matter, the Township’s failure to avail itself of any of the powers it had at its disposal in the years after it conducted its initial inspections of the construction back in the late 1980s meant that the home was left underregulated. As a result, the Township allowed people to live in the home for decades despite the presence of construction defects that rendered the home dangerous to live in and that should have (so the Huethers will argue at the trial proper) been identified during the Township’s regulation of construction.

This decision is instructive to municipalities: allow open building permits to languish at your own risk, and more importantly at the risk of the occupants’ health and safety.

The municipality has appealed this decision, which will give the Court of Appeal an opportunity to weigh in on this interesting question of law.

[\[i\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref1) [SO 1992, c 23](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/92b23) \[*BCA*\].

[\[ii\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref2) [O Reg 332/12](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/120332) \[*OBC*\].

[\[iii\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref3) [*Ingles v. Tutkaluk Construction Ltd.*, 2000 SCC 12](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc12/2000scc12.html) at para 23 \[*Ingles*\].

[\[iv\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref4) [*Ingles v. Tutkaluk Construction Ltd.*, 2000 SCC 12](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc12/2000scc12.html) at para 23; *Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)*, 2022 ONCA 626 at para 25 \[*Breen*\].

[\[v\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref5) [*Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)*, 2022 ONCA 626](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca626/2022onca626.html) at para 40.

[\[vi\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref6) [*Tokarz v. Selwyn (Township)*, 2022 ONCA 246](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca246/2022onca246.html) at para 35 \[*Tokarz*\].

[\[vii\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref7) [*Rothfield v Manolakos*, 1989 CanLII 17 (SCC)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii17/1989canlii17.html) at pp 1269-70 \[*Rothfield*\].

[\[viii\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref8) [*Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)*, 2022 ONCA 626](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca626/2022onca626.html) at para 59.

[\[ix\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref9) [SO 2002, c 24, Sch B](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02l24) \[*Limitations Act*\].

[\[x\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref10) [*Limitations Act, 2002*, SO 2002, c 24, Sch B s 15](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/02l24).

[\[xi\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref11) [*Huether v Sharpe*, 2024 ONSC 1987](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc1987/2024onsc1987.html) \[*Huether*\].

[\[xii\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref12) [*Huether v Sharpe*, 2024 ONSC 1987](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc1987/2024onsc1987.html) at para 39.

[\[xiii\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref13) [*Huether v Sharpe*, 2024 ONSC 1987](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc1987/2024onsc1987.html) at para 50.

[\[xiv\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref14) [*Huether v Sharpe*, 2024 ONSC 1987](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc1987/2024onsc1987.html) at para 55.

[\[xv\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref15) [*Huether v Sharpe*, 2024 ONSC 1987](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc1987/2024onsc1987.html) at para 55.

[\[xvi\]](https://dcmlaw.ca/huether-v-sharpe-continuous-liability-of-municipalities-in-their-regulation-of-residential-construction/#_ednref16) [*Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)*, 2022 ONCA 626](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca626/2022onca626.html) at para 46; *Huether v Sharpe*, 2024 ONSC 1987 at para 55.

**Categories:** Municipal Litigation

**Tags:** Building Permit, Construction Negligence, Ontario Superior Court, Summary Judgment

---

### [Toronto Bike Laws and Cyclist Rights After an Accident](https://dcmlaw.ca/biking-through-toronto-safely-navigating-laws-accidents-and-safety-measures/)

**Published:** July 13, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Cycling in Toronto means sharing busy streets with cars, streetcars, and an ongoing fight over the city's bike lanes. This guide covers the Highway Traffic Act rules that protect and bind cyclists, the current status of the Bloor, Yonge, and University lanes, what to do if a car hits you, and how an injured cyclist can claim accident benefits and sue the at-fault driver.

**Content:**

More Torontonians are on two wheels than ever, commuting, running errands, and riding for sport. Sharing crowded streets with cars, streetcars, and trucks carries real risk, and the rules that govern who can ride where have rarely been more contested. Whether you ride the Bloor lanes daily or only in summer, it pays to know the laws that protect you, the rules you have to follow, what to do if you are hit, and how you can be compensated for an injury. Here is a current, practical guide for Toronto cyclists.

## Ontario’s Cycling Laws: What Every Toronto Rider Should Know

Under Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act (HTA), a bicycle is a vehicle, the same as a car or truck. That cuts both ways: you have the right to use the road, and you have to follow the rules of the road, including stopping at red lights and stop signs, riding in the same direction as traffic, and signalling your turns.

### The equipment your bike needs

- **Helmet:** anyone under 18 must wear an approved bicycle helmet. For riders 16 and under, a parent or guardian is responsible for making sure they do. Helmets are not mandatory for adults, but they are strongly recommended, and the safety reasons are obvious.
- **Lights and reflectors:** from half an hour before sunset to half an hour after sunrise (and in poor visibility), your bike needs a white or amber front light and a red rear light or reflector, plus white reflective tape on the front forks and red on the rear. A flashing red rear light is allowed.
- **Bell or horn:** every bike must have a working bell, gong, or horn.
- **Brakes:** at least one brake that can skid the rear wheel on dry pavement.

### The rules of the road

Ride as close as practicable to the right edge of the road, except when turning left, avoiding hazards, or taking the lane where it is too narrow to share safely. Bicycles are banned from 400-series highways and other expressways. In Toronto, sidewalk riding is prohibited for anyone aged 14 and over. And when a streetcar stops to load or unload passengers, you must stay at least two metres back from its doors until passengers have finished crossing.

### The rules that protect you from drivers

Two HTA rules are aimed squarely at the most common ways cyclists get hurt:

- **The one-metre passing rule:** a driver must leave at least one metre of space when passing a cyclist, where practicable. Failing to do so carries a set fine of roughly $110 and two demerit points, with higher penalties in community safety zones.
- **Dooring:** it is an offence to open a vehicle door into the path of a cyclist. The set fine is about $365 with three demerit points, and a conviction can bring a fine of up to $1,000. “Dooring” is one of the signature hazards of riding next to parked cars in the city.

There is also a powerful rule that matters after a crash. Under section 193 of the Highway Traffic Act, when a motor vehicle strikes a cyclist, the law reverses the usual onus: in a civil claim, it is the driver who must prove they were not negligent, rather than the cyclist having to prove the driver was. For an injured cyclist, that is a meaningful legal advantage.

## The Fight Over Toronto’s Bike Lanes

The single biggest cycling-law story in the province right now is the battle over Toronto’s protected bike lanes, and as of this writing it is not finished.

In late 2024, Ontario passed Bill 212, the Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024. It amended the Highway Traffic Act to require municipalities to get the province’s approval before building bike lanes that remove a lane of motor vehicle traffic, and a late amendment directed the removal of about 19 kilometres of existing protected bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street, and University Avenue, to be replaced with vehicle lanes. The legislation also included provisions limiting the province’s and its contractors’ liability for collisions, injuries, or deaths on the affected roads. The government’s stated goal was easing congestion.

Cycle Toronto and two individual cyclists challenged the law, arguing that tearing out protected lanes would expose riders to a greater risk of serious injury and death, in violation of section 7 of the Charter (the right to life and security of the person). After an early injunction was refused, the court granted an injunction in April 2025 that paused the removals while the case was decided. In 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Justice Schabas, 2025 ONSC 4397) struck down the removal provisions, finding the law arbitrary and its safety cost grossly disproportionate to the asserted traffic benefit, and holding that a later “reconfiguration” version of the law would offend the Charter in the same way.

Ontario appealed. The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard the appeal on January 28, 2026, and reserved its decision. For now, the Bloor, Yonge, and University lanes remain in place under the injunction, and the province has signalled it could invoke the notwithstanding clause. Because this is moving through the courts, confirm the current status before relying on it. The practical point for riders is simple: protected, separated lanes are safer than painted ones, and where you can use them, you should.

## What to Do If You Are Hit by a Car While Cycling

If you are in a collision, the steps you take in the first hours protect both your health and any future claim.

1. **Get safe and get medical attention.** Move out of traffic if you can, and see a doctor even if your injuries seem minor. Adrenaline masks symptoms, and a concussion or soft-tissue injury may not be obvious at first. Prompt medical records also document your injuries.
2. **Call the police.** Ontario law requires that a collision causing personal injury, or property damage over $2,000, be reported. Get the officer’s name and the report number.
3. **Collect the details.** Take down the driver’s name, licence, plate, and insurance information, and the names and numbers of any witnesses. Photograph the scene, the vehicle, your bike, and your injuries.
4. **Do not admit fault.** Stick to the facts when speaking with the driver, the police, and insurers.
5. **Preserve the evidence.** Keep your damaged bike, helmet, and clothing as they are. They can be important proof later.
6. **Get legal advice early.** A lawyer can help you preserve your claim, deal with the insurers, and make sure you do not miss a deadline.

## Your Right to Compensation as an Injured Cyclist

A cyclist hurt in a collision with a motor vehicle in Ontario generally has two avenues, and they work together.

First, you can claim **accident benefits** under Ontario’s no-fault system, regardless of who was at fault, and even if you do not own a car or have your own auto policy. These benefits, set by the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, cover things like medical and rehabilitation treatment and attendant care, and, for those who carry the coverage, income replacement. If you have no policy of your own, you typically claim through the insurer of the vehicle involved.

It is worth knowing that Ontario changed its accident-benefits system on July 1, 2026. Medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care remain available to anyone injured, but most other benefits became optional, and eligibility for those optional benefits narrowed. For collisions on or after that date, a cyclist who is not within a covered group on a responding policy may not be entitled to the optional benefits. The details matter, and our guide to [applying for accident benefits after a car accident](https://dcmlaw.ca/applying-for-accident-benefits-after-a-car-accident-in-ontario/) walks through what changed.

Second, you can bring a **claim against the at-fault driver** for the harm the accident benefits do not cover, including pain and suffering and income losses beyond the benefit caps. As noted above, the Highway Traffic Act’s reverse-onus rule puts the burden on the driver to show they were not negligent, which often strengthens an injured cyclist’s position. Our [personal injury lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) and [Toronto car accident team](https://dcmlaw.ca/car-accident-lawyer-toronto/) handle exactly these claims.

## Staying Safe on Toronto’s Streets

The law sets the floor; your own riding keeps you alive. A few habits make the biggest difference:

- **Ride predictably.** Hold a straight line, do not weave between parked cars, and signal your moves so drivers can anticipate you.
- **Take the lane when you need it.** At intersections, narrow stretches, and roundabouts, claiming the lane is often safer than hugging the curb.
- **Stay out of the door zone.** Leave room when passing parked cars, even where there is a painted lane.
- **Be visible.** Run lights even when they are not strictly required, wear bright or reflective clothing, and make eye contact with drivers before you trust them to yield.
- **Watch for the right hook.** A vehicle turning right across your path is a classic city collision; never assume a driver has seen you.
- **Wear a helmet, whatever your age.** It is the cheapest insurance you will ever buy.

## Frequently Asked Questions

**Do I have to wear a helmet to cycle in Toronto?** Riders under 18 must, by law. Adults are not required to, but a helmet sharply reduces the risk of a serious head injury and is strongly recommended.

**Can I ride my bike on the sidewalk?** Not in Toronto if you are 14 or older. Sidewalk cycling is prohibited by the municipal bylaw, and you can be ticketed.

**I was hit by a car on my bike, but I do not own a car. Can I still claim benefits?** Yes. Accident benefits are no-fault and are available to injured cyclists even without their own auto policy, usually through the insurer of the vehicle involved.

**If a driver doors me or hits me, do I have to prove they were at fault?** When a motor vehicle strikes a cyclist, the Highway Traffic Act reverses the onus, so the driver must prove they were not negligent. That said, every case turns on its facts, and evidence still matters.

**I was not wearing a helmet when I was injured. Can I still sue?** Yes. Not wearing a helmet does not bar a claim, although if it contributed to a head injury, a court may reduce your damages for contributory negligence.

## Talk to a Bicycle Accident Lawyer

If you or someone you love has been injured cycling in Toronto, you do not have to sort out the insurance and the law on your own. Our personal injury lawyers can help you understand your rights, claim the benefits you are entitled to, and pursue fair compensation from an at-fault driver. [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) for a free consultation.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Cycling Accident, Motor Vehicle Accident

---

### [Impaired Driving Lawsuits Seeking Justice Beyond Criminal Charges](https://dcmlaw.ca/impaired-driving-lawsuits-seeking-justice-beyond-criminal-charges/)

**Published:** July 14, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** A criminal conviction punishes an impaired driver, but it rarely makes the victim's family whole. This post explains how a civil lawsuit, and in the right case an award of punitive damages, can pursue accountability and deterrence beyond the criminal courts after an impaired-driving tragedy.

**Content:**

## Tragic Death of a 15-Year-Old in Brampton

Imagine the heartbreak of losing a loved one to an avoidable tragedy. On a quiet evening on July 12, 2024, [a 15-year-old girl’s life was abruptly cut short](https://www.cp24.com/news/she-was-very-sweet-girl-15-fatally-struck-by-alleged-impaired-driver-in-brampton-remembered-by-friends-1.6962875) in Brampton, Ontario. She was fatally struck by an alleged impaired driver, leaving her family and friends devastated. Such incidents starkly highlight the serious consequences of drunk driving and emphasize the importance of seeking justice beyond criminal charges. This post will explore how punitive damages can serve as a powerful tool for families affected by impaired driving fatalities, offering a path to justice and deterrence.

## Impaired Driving Laws in Ontario

Understanding the legal framework surrounding impaired driving is crucial for those seeking justice. In Ontario, impaired driving laws are strict, reflecting the seriousness of such offenses. The Criminal Code outlines severe penalties for drivers found operating vehicles under the influence of alcohol or drugs. These penalties include hefty fines, imprisonment, and driving prohibitions.

### Legal Implications for Impaired Drivers

Impaired drivers face both criminal and civil consequences. Criminal charges aim to punish the offender and deter future violations. However, criminal proceedings do not always address the comprehensive losses suffered by victims and their families. This is where civil lawsuits come into play, particularly those seeking punitive damages.

### Punitive Damages in Personal Injury Cases

Punitive damages are designed not just to compensate victims but to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar conduct in the future. Unlike compensatory damages, which cover medical expenses, lost wages, and emotional distress, punitive damages focus on the offender’s egregious behavior. In cases of impaired driving, these damages can serve as a significant deterrent.

### Types of Compensation Available

Victims and their families may seek various types of compensation. Compensatory damages cover tangible losses such as medical bills and funeral expenses. Punitive damages, on the other hand, go beyond these tangible costs to address the moral culpability of the impaired driver. Together, these compensations aim to provide a sense of justice and financial relief for the affected families.

## The Role of Punitive Damages

### How Punitive Damages Differ from Compensatory Damages

Compensatory damages aim to make the victim whole by covering the direct costs associated with the accident. Punitive damages, however, serve a different purpose. They are intended to penalize the wrongdoer for particularly reckless behavior and to act as a warning to others. This dual function makes them a crucial element in civil cases involving impaired driving.

### Criteria for Awarding Punitive Damages

Not every case qualifies for punitive damages. Courts consider several factors, including the severity of the defendant’s misconduct, the harm caused, and the need for deterrence. In impaired driving cases, the court will look at the level of intoxication, prior offenses, and any aggravating circumstances. The court may even consider the related criminal conviction as a mitigating factor in awarding punitive damages to avoid punishing an offender twice. The aim is to impose an award that reflects the gravity of the wrongdoing and discourages future violations.

### Importance in Deterring Future Incidents

Punitive damages play a vital role in deterring future impaired driving incidents. By imposing substantial financial penalties, courts send a clear message about the seriousness of such behavior. This deterrent effect is especially important in combating the persistent issue of impaired driving, ultimately contributing to safer roads.

## Legal Process for Seeking Punitive Damages

### Step-by-Step Guide on Pursuing Punitive Damages

Families of victims can pursue punitive damages through a civil lawsuit. The process begins with filing a claim in civil court, followed by gathering evidence to support the claim. This may include police reports, witness statements, and expert testimony. A personal injury lawyer can guide families through this complex process, ensuring that all necessary documentation is in place.

### Evidence Needed

Successful claims for punitive damages require compelling evidence. This includes proof of the defendant’s impaired state, the circumstances of the accident, and the impact on the victim’s family. Detailed records and expert analyses can strengthen the case, highlighting the severity of the wrongdoing and its consequences.

### Role of a Personal Injury Lawyer

A personal injury lawyer is indispensable in these cases. They provide expert legal advice, handle the intricate details of the lawsuit, and advocate for the maximum possible compensation. Their expertise ensures that the case is presented effectively, increasing the likelihood of a favorable outcome.

## Insights from Legal Experts and Advocates

### No Insurance Coverage for Punitive Damages

One significant challenge to the victims of impaired driving is the fact that there is no insurance coverage for punitive damages. There would in most cases be coverage for any compensatory damages awarded for impaired driving, however, any recovery for a punitive damages award would have to be personally collected from the offender. Often times, this person may not have any assets of significance to satisfy the award leaving the victim financially unsatisfied.

### MADD Canada

The frequency of impaired driving is alarming. According to [MADD Canada](https://madd.ca/pages/impaired-driving/overview/statistics/): “Every hour in Canada, an average of 9 federal criminal charges and provincial short-term licence suspensions are laid for alcohol or drug-impaired driving.”

## Conclusion

The devastating impact of impaired driving extends far beyond the immediate incident, affecting families and communities deeply. Punitive damages offer a vital avenue for justice, addressing both the tangible and moral dimensions of these tragedies. By pursuing punitive damages, victims’ families can achieve a sense of closure and contribute to broader efforts to deter impaired driving.

If you or a loved one has been affected by an impaired driver, it’s crucial to seek legal advice. Consulting a personal injury lawyer can help you understand your rights and the options available to you. [Contact us today](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/#request-free-consultation) to take the first step towards justice and explore the potential for punitive damages in your case.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Damages, Impaired Driving, Motor Vehicle Accident

---

### [How to Make a Complaint Against a Physician to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO)](https://dcmlaw.ca/how-to-make-a-complaint-against-a-physician-to-the-college-of-physicians-and-surgeons-of-ontario-cpso/)

**Published:** July 20, 2024
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Excerpt:** In Ontario, a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) and a medical malpractice lawsuit are two separate paths that do different things: one holds a doctor to account, the other seeks compensation. This guide explains how the CPSO complaint process works, what the College can and cannot do, the possible outcomes and your review rights, and how a complaint differs from a claim.

**Content:**

If you believe an Ontario doctor provided substandard care or behaved improperly, you have two separate paths, and they do different things. A complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) is about the doctor’s conduct and competence, and it is how the profession is held to account. A medical malpractice claim is about compensation for the harm you suffered. This guide explains how the CPSO complaint process actually works, what it can and cannot do for you, and how it differs from a lawsuit, so you can decide which path, or both, makes sense.

## What the CPSO Is, and What It Can and Cannot Do

The CPSO is the regulator for physicians in Ontario. It operates under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 and the Health Professions Procedural Code, and its job is to protect the public by setting standards, registering doctors, investigating concerns, and disciplining physicians who fall short.

It is important to be clear about the limits of that role. The CPSO is not a patient advocate and it is not a legal service. It cannot award you money, it cannot order a doctor to compensate you for your losses, and it cannot force a doctor to apologize. A complaint can lead to consequences for the physician and can flag a problem for the public, but it will not put money in your pocket. That is what a civil claim is for, and we come back to the difference below.

## What You Can Complain About

A complaint can raise any genuine concern about a physician’s care or conduct, including:

- The quality or competence of medical care, including a missed or delayed diagnosis or a surgical or treatment error
- Communication, professionalism, or rudeness
- Boundary, ethical, or consent issues
- Poor or inaccurate medical records
- Confidentiality breaches
- Billing or other professional-conduct concerns

You do not need to prove your case before you complain. Describing your concern clearly, and backing it up with records and dates, is enough to start the process.

## Before You File

The College suggests trying to resolve the issue directly first, where that is appropriate. Depending on where you were treated, you can also raise concerns with the hospital’s patient experience or patient relations office, the administration of the Family Health Team where the doctor practises, or the Ontario Patient Ombudsman.

There is no formal deadline to file a complaint. That said, physicians are only required to keep adult patient records for ten years, and the more time that passes, the harder an investigation becomes, so it is best to complain as soon as you can. Be aware that complaining is not the same as suing, and a complaint does not pause the limitation period for a civil claim (more on that below).

The College generally cannot act on an anonymous complaint, because the physician is entitled to see the complaint and respond to it. If a complaint is made by someone other than the patient, the College will usually need the patient’s consent to access the medical records.

## How to File a Complaint, Step by Step

1. **Gather your information and documents.** Collect your details and the patient’s (if different), the physician’s name and practice information, the dates and a description of what happened, copies of relevant medical records and correspondence, and anything else that supports your concern.
2. **Complete the complaint form.** You can file a complaint through the Complaints and Concerns section of the College’s website at cpso.on.ca. A complaint must be in writing (the online form satisfies this). If you experienced sexual abuse by a physician, the College has a dedicated support line and a social worker who can help you through the process.
3. **Be clear and specific.** Set out what happened, when, and why it concerns you. Attach your supporting documents so the College has the full picture from the start.

## What Happens After You File

Once your complaint is received, the College sends the physician a copy and asks for a written response, which the physician has a professional duty to provide. The College’s Investigations and Resolutions Department investigates: it gathers records, may interview you and the physician, gives you a copy of the physician’s response, and lets you reply.

The investigator’s report then goes to the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC), a committee made up of both physicians and public members. The ICRC reviews the file on the documents, it does not hold a live hearing, and both you and the physician receive its decision and, in most cases, written reasons.

The Code sets a target of 150 days for the committee to dispose of a complaint, but that timeline is a guideline rather than a hard rule, and a complex investigation can take a year or more. In serious cases where there is a risk to patients, the College can impose interim restrictions on a physician’s practice while the investigation continues.

## Possible Outcomes of a Complaint

After reviewing the file, the ICRC can:

- Take no further action
- Advise the physician on how to improve, or require remedial self-study
- Accept an **undertaking**, a signed commitment by the physician to improve or restrict their practice
- Require the physician to complete specific education or remediation (a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program, or SCERP)
- Issue a caution, delivered in person before the committee
- Refer the matter to the **Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal**, the most serious step

Some of these outcomes are public. Specified continuing education and remediation programs, oral cautions, and referrals to discipline are posted on the physician’s profile on the College’s public register. If a matter is referred to discipline, the Tribunal holds a hearing and, if it finds professional misconduct or incompetence, can impose penalties up to and including suspension or revocation of the physician’s certificate of registration. Discipline decisions can be appealed to the Divisional Court.

## If You Disagree With the Outcome: HPARB Review

If you are not satisfied with the ICRC’s decision, you can ask the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) to review it. A request must be made in writing within 30 days of receiving the decision. (There is no HPARB review where the matter was referred to discipline or to a fitness-to-practise process; those follow their own track.)

An HPARB review is narrow. It looks at two things only: whether the College’s investigation was adequate, and whether the ICRC’s decision was reasonable. HPARB does not re-examine the quality of your medical care and it cannot award you money. It can confirm the decision, send it back to the ICRC, or require the committee to take certain steps. HPARB decisions can in turn be challenged by judicial review at the Divisional Court.

## A CPSO Complaint Is Not a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

This is the distinction that matters most, and it is the one patients most often get wrong.

A CPSO complaint is regulatory. It addresses the physician’s conduct to protect the public. It does not compensate you, and the complaint file and the ICRC’s decision are generally not admissible in a civil lawsuit, because the legislation protects College proceedings from being used in court. A regulatory outcome, even a caution or a discipline finding, is not the same as a court finding that the doctor is legally liable to you.

A [medical malpractice claim](https://dcmlaw.ca/can-i-sue-for-medical-malpractice/) is a civil action for compensation. To succeed, you must prove two things: that the care fell below the standard of a reasonable physician in the circumstances, and that the substandard care caused you harm. Both usually turn on expert medical evidence, and the standard of care is a question for those experts, not something a complaint decision settles. Because this kind of litigation is expensive to run, and because physicians are defended vigorously, a claim generally only makes sense where the harm is significant.

Two further points are worth keeping front of mind:

- **The two paths are separate, and you can pursue both.** A complaint can deliver accountability and help protect other patients; a claim can deliver compensation. One is not a substitute for the other.
- **A complaint does not protect your right to sue.** Filing with the CPSO does not stop the clock on a civil claim. In Ontario, you generally have two years from when you knew, or ought to have known, that you had a claim to start a lawsuit, under the Limitations Act, 2002. If compensation may matter to you, speak to a lawyer early so a limitation period does not quietly expire while a complaint is working its way through the College.

## Should You Complain, Sue, or Both?

If your goal is to hold a doctor accountable or to flag conduct that could affect other patients, a complaint is the right tool, and you should make one where you feel it is warranted. If you have suffered serious harm and want compensation, that is a question for a civil claim, and the two can run at the same time. The safest course, if you are unsure, is to talk to a [medical malpractice lawyer](https://dcmlaw.ca/medical-malpractice-lawyers/) before you decide, so you understand your options and protect your limitation period.

## Frequently Asked Questions

**Will the CPSO get me compensation?** No. The CPSO regulates physicians and can discipline them, but it cannot award money or order a doctor to pay your losses. Compensation comes from a civil claim.

**Is there a deadline to file a complaint?** There is no formal deadline, but sooner is better because records and memories fade. Note that a complaint does not extend the two-year limitation period for a lawsuit.

**Can I file a complaint and sue at the same time?** Yes. A regulatory complaint and a civil claim are separate processes with different purposes, and pursuing one does not prevent the other.

**What if I disagree with the College’s decision?** You can ask HPARB to review the decision within 30 days. HPARB looks at whether the investigation was adequate and whether the decision was reasonable; it cannot reassess your care or award money.

**Will my complaint be made public?** Most outcomes are not published, but specified education or remediation programs, oral cautions, and referrals to discipline are posted on the physician’s public register profile.

## Talk to a Medical Malpractice Lawyer

Making a complaint is an important way to raise concerns about your care. If you are also wondering whether you have a claim worth pursuing, that is a separate question, and an early conversation can make all the difference. Our medical malpractice lawyers, led by [Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/), can help you understand whether you may have a case and how to protect your rights. [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) for a confidential consultation.

**Categories:** Medical Malpractice

**Tags:** CPSO, Expert Evidence, Standard of Care

---

### [Applying for Accident Benefits After a Car Accident in Ontario](https://dcmlaw.ca/applying-for-accident-benefits-after-a-car-accident-in-ontario/)

**Published:** July 20, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Ontario's accident benefits changed on July 1, 2026: medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care stay mandatory, while most other benefits are now optional. This guide explains what accident benefits cover, the current limits, how to apply after a car accident, the deadlines to watch, and how the no-fault system differs from suing the at-fault driver.

**Content:**

A car accident leaves more than injuries. It brings a wave of paperwork, deadlines, and decisions at the worst possible time. If you have been hurt in a collision in Ontario, accident benefits are usually your first source of support, and applying for them correctly and on time can shape your entire recovery. This guide explains what accident benefits are, what they cover, the changes that took effect in 2026, how to apply, and the deadlines you cannot afford to miss.

## What Are Accident Benefits?

Accident benefits are part of Ontario’s no-fault auto insurance system. “No-fault” does not mean no one is responsible. It means you claim these benefits from your own insurer regardless of who caused the crash, so support can begin while fault is still being sorted out. They are set by a regulation called the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, or SABS, which applies under every Ontario auto policy.

Accident benefits provide first-party support for things like medical treatment, rehabilitation, attendant care, and, for those who carry the coverage, lost income. They are separate from any lawsuit against the at-fault driver, a distinction we come back to below.

## What Changed on July 1, 2026

Ontario made its most significant change to accident benefits in years, and it affects what is automatically included in your policy. Under Ontario Regulation 383/24, effective July 1, 2026:

- **Medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits remain mandatory** in every auto policy, along with coverage for the cost of examinations.
- **Most other benefits are now optional**, including income replacement, non-earner, caregiver, housekeeping, death and funeral, lost educational expenses, and coverage for damaged personal items. You can still buy them, but they are no longer automatic.
- **Your auto insurer pays first** for accident-related medical and rehabilitation costs, except medication, ahead of any workplace or private health plan.
- **Who is covered for the optional benefits has narrowed.** For accidents on or after July 1, 2026, the optional benefits reach the named insured, their spouse, dependants, and listed drivers. Passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists who fall outside those categories may no longer qualify for the optional benefits, although mandatory medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care remain available to anyone injured.

Two practical points. If your policy renews after July 1, 2026, your existing coverage carries forward unchanged unless you agree in writing to remove or adjust it, so review your declarations before dropping anything. And the rules that govern a claim follow the date of the accident: a crash before July 1, 2026 is dealt with under the old framework even if the claim continues afterward.

## What Accident Benefits Cover

Benefit amounts are set by regulation and can change over time, so treat the figures below as the current standard limits and confirm the limits on your own policy.

### Medical and Rehabilitation Benefits

These cover treatment that OHIP does not, such as physiotherapy, chiropractic care, psychological treatment, and assistive devices. The amount available depends on how your injuries are classified:

- **Minor injuries** (sprains, strains, whiplash) are capped at **$3,500** under the Minor Injury Guideline.
- **Non-catastrophic injuries** (for example, fractures) carry a combined medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care limit of **$65,000**, available for up to five years.
- **Catastrophic impairments** (such as serious brain injury, paralysis, or loss of a limb) carry a combined limit of **$1,000,000** over your lifetime.

How an injury is classified has an enormous effect on the funding available, and insurers do not always get it right. A classification can be challenged, and an injury can move from one category to another as its severity becomes clear.

### Attendant Care

Attendant care helps pay for a personal support worker, attendant, or care facility to assist with daily activities like bathing, dressing, and eating. It is not available for minor injuries, and it shares the $65,000 non-catastrophic or $1,000,000 catastrophic limit above.

### Income Replacement Benefits

If your injuries keep you from working, income replacement benefits pay **70% of your gross weekly income, up to a standard maximum of $400 per week**. Optional coverage can raise that ceiling to as much as **$1,000 per week**. Because $400 a week rarely covers a household’s expenses, the gap between your actual income loss and the benefit is often pursued separately, in a claim against the at-fault driver.

### Non-Earner Benefits

If you were not employed at the time of the accident, for example a student or a retiree, and you suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, you may qualify for a non-earner benefit of **$185 per week**, beginning after a four-week waiting period.

### Other Benefits

Depending on your coverage and circumstances, the SABS may also provide caregiver benefits, housekeeping and home maintenance, lost educational expenses (up to **$15,000**), visitor expenses, and replacement of damaged personal items. If someone dies in an accident, a death benefit can pay **$25,000** to a spouse, **$10,000** to each dependant, and up to **$6,000** toward funeral expenses. After July 1, 2026, these are optional coverages.

## How to Apply, Step by Step

1. **Notify your insurer right away.** Report the accident to your own auto insurer as soon as possible, and they will send you the application package. If your injuries prevent you from calling, have someone do it for you.
2. **Complete the application (OCF-1).** The Application for Accident Benefits (OCF-1) is the gateway to the system. Fill it out carefully and accurately.
3. **Gather the supporting forms.** A health practitioner completes the Disability Certificate (OCF-3), and your treatment provider submits a Treatment and Assessment Plan (OCF-18). If you are claiming income replacement, your employer completes the Employer’s Confirmation of Income (OCF-2), and a separate election form (OCF-10) is used to choose between income replacement, non-earner, and caregiver benefits.
4. **Keep everything.** Hold on to receipts, mileage, medical records, and a log of every call and letter with your insurer. Good records win disputes.

## Deadlines You Cannot Miss

The system runs on strict deadlines, and missing one can cost you your benefits:

- **7 days** to notify your insurer of the accident, or as soon as practicable.
- **30 days** to return the completed OCF-1 after you receive the application package.
- **2 years** to dispute a denied or terminated benefit at the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), measured from the insurer’s refusal.

## Common Mistakes to Avoid

- **Downplaying your injuries.** Concussion, chronic pain, and psychological injury can emerge or worsen over time. Describe the full picture, honestly and completely.
- **Missing a deadline.** Calendar the 7-day, 30-day, and 2-year limits and treat them as hard.
- **Submitting incomplete forms.** Gaps and inconsistencies invite denials and delay. Double-check before you submit.
- **Facing a denial alone.** Insurers deny and terminate benefits routinely, and you do not have to accept a denial at face value.

## If Your Claim Is Denied

A denial is not the end of the road. You are entitled to written reasons, and you can dispute the decision at the Licence Appeal Tribunal within two years. Many denials turn on a treatment plan, a benefit classification, or an insurer’s medical assessment, each of which can be challenged with the right evidence. This is often the point at which legal advice makes the biggest difference.

## Accident Benefits Are Not the Same as Suing the At-Fault Driver

Accident benefits are first-party, no-fault, and capped. A tort claim against the at-fault driver is different: it can compensate for pain and suffering and for the income loss that exceeds the accident-benefit cap. The two work together, but they are not duplicates. Benefits you have already received are generally taken into account when a tort claim settles, to prevent double recovery. If your injuries are serious, you may have both a benefits claim and a lawsuit underway at the same time, and it helps to understand [how long a personal injury claim takes](https://dcmlaw.ca/how-long-does-a-personal-injury-lawsuit-take-to-settle/).

## How a Personal Injury Lawyer Can Help

The accident-benefits process is detailed, deadline-driven, and built around an insurer that does this every day. Our [personal injury lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) can make sure your application is complete and on time, push back on an unfair classification or denial, coordinate your benefits with any tort claim, and represent you at the Licence Appeal Tribunal if it comes to that. The earlier we are involved, the more we can protect.

## Frequently Asked Questions

**Do I still get accident benefits if the accident was my fault?** Yes. Accident benefits are no-fault, so you can claim them regardless of who caused the collision.

**How long do I have to apply?** Notify your insurer within seven days, and submit the completed OCF-1 within 30 days of receiving it. If a benefit is later denied, you have two years to dispute it at the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

**I was a passenger, pedestrian, or cyclist. Am I covered?** You can still access mandatory medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits. For accidents on or after July 1, 2026, however, the now-optional benefits such as income replacement may not be available to you unless you fall within the covered group on a responding policy. Speak to a lawyer about which policy responds in your situation.

**Will claiming affect my premium?** Accident benefits are first-party, no-fault benefits. Whether a claim affects your premium can depend on the circumstances, so confirm with your insurer or broker.

## Talk to Us

If you have been injured in a car accident in Ontario, you do not have to navigate the accident-benefits system alone. [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) for a free consultation, and let our team help you secure the support you need to recover.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Accident Benefits, Catastrophic Injury, Licence Appeal Tribunal, Motor Vehicle Accident

---

### [Building Permit Claims Under a Title Insurance Policy](https://dcmlaw.ca/building-permit-claims-under-a-title-insurance-policy/)

**Published:** August 6, 2024
**Author:** David Morin

**Excerpt:** You saved for years, bought a home, and then discovered it was not built properly, perhaps not even safe to live in. This commentary explains "Building Permit" coverage under a residential title insurance policy: what it covers when a previous owner built without a required permit, and how it fits alongside claims against vendors, builders, and inspectors.

**Content:**

You’ve worked hard. You and your family have saved diligently for years. Congratulations you’ve bought a house. Unfortunately, it wasn’t built properly and might even be too dangerous for you to live in. What do you do now?

In the [first post in this series](https://dcmlaw.ca/building-permit-title-insurance-claims-part-1/), I discussed the MacDonald case and the fact that the residential title insurance polices sold in Canada cover much more than strictly “Title” matters. In this Commentary I turn to one of those non-Title or “Land” coverages – commonly called “Building Permit” coverage. Although the policies sold in Canada are not standardized (they should be) most contain coverage like the following from Chicago Title’s policy:

*“You are forced by a Governmental Authority to remove or remedy your existing structures or any part of them – other than boundary walls or fences – because any portion was built without obtaining a required building permit from the proper Governmental Authority.”*

I need to pause for a moment before analyzing this coverage. At [Davidson, Cahill, Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/introducing-davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/) we have pursued a number of legal remedies for clients that have found themselves living in a poorly built home. These include various combinations of actions against Vendors; Home Inspectors; Lawyers; Builders; Tarion (in Ontario the Builders’ Warranty company); Engineers; Architects; and Municipalities. Any one, or all, of these parties can have duties that, depending on the circumstances, they owe to owners of improperly built homes. Actions against these various parties are beyond the scope of this Commentary on title insurance coverage.

Now what does “Building Permit” coverage cover? The first thing to note is that just because you have a problem with your structure the coverage is not necessarily engaged. To claim under this Covered Risk you must be being **forced** by a *“Governmental Authority”*. Governmental Authority is a defined term in most of the policies. Chicago Title for example defines “Governmental Authority” as:

*“… any department or division of the Government of Canada, or any province or territory or of the municipality in which Your Land is located which has jurisdiction with respect to matters of building and zoning compliance.”*

Revenue Canada is clearly a “department or division” of the Government of Canada but they don’t have jurisdiction with respect to matters of building and zoning compliance. Normally then, the “Governmental Authority” will be the Building Department of the Municipality where the property is located. It is less likely, but possible, that a Provincial “department or division” might be involved, as might a Federal authority on, for example, Reserve Lands.

What is “forced”? In denying claims the title insurers have taken the position that “forced” can only mean being forced by a properly issued Work Order. We don’t agree. The policy could read “forced by a Work Order” and define “Work Order” but it doesn’t. “Forced” then is open to interpretation. Imagine you are planning a renovation but the City won’t permit your renovation until you repair your existing structure. You are being “forced”. You can’t use and enjoy your property in the way you’d like until you repair it.

Note that [Chicago Title](https://www.ctic.com/) has added *“or remedy”* after *“remove”* following the MacDonald case [previously discussed](https://dcmlaw.ca/building-permit-title-insurance-claims-part-1/).

I turn now to the word *“any”*. Note that the coverage applies if you are being forced to *remove or remedy* your existing structures or *any* part of them. Structures is plural meaning coverage is engaged if you are being forced to remove or remedy a portion of the garage or a shed as opposed to the house. This means that should you be forced to fix the house due to the fact an addition (or garage, shed, deck, studio, other structure) was added without a building permit you have coverage for the repairs needed on the house – not just those needed on the other structure. In other words what needs to be fixed does not need to be the portion built without the permit. A deck may have been added without a permit but its addition is causing structural or water penetration issues in the permitted house that the City wants remedied. The insurers don’t always agree with our position but it is what the covered risk says. Note also the reference to “existing” structures. These policies speak as of the Date of Policy which is (normally) the Closing Date of the purchase. We are therefore speaking about structures that were in existence when you closed and not structures you may have added after closing.

The next phrase is important: “*built without obtaining a required building permit”.* You will want to check your policy but the word *“required”* has not always been included here. It has been added, understandably, to make clear that the risk is only covered if the improvement on the land had to be permitted when it was built. Homes built before 1975 in Ontario may not have needed a permit.

Now what is a “Building Permit”. A Building Permit is an authorization from a Municipality (pursuant to authority granted by the [Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/92b23)) for specific works to be completed on a property. Building Permits are issued so as to ensure that the project complies with building, zoning, land-use, and safety standards relevant to the jurisdiction in which the property is located. Each jurisdiction will have its own processes but normally draft plans are submitted with an application, permission is granted or withheld, and the process leads to a final inspection in order to confirm that the proposed work is complete and in accordance with the permit issued. This leads to the “open” building permit being “closed”.

The title insurers have taken the position that if a building permit has simply been *‘applied for’* meaning it has been *‘opened’* then the permit has been *‘obtained’*. We don’t agree. The coverage would be essentially useless if ‘obtained’ is read to mean ‘applied for’ or ‘opened’. There could easily be hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work that remained to be completed after a building permit was simply ‘opened’. For the coverage to make any sense it has to mean obtain a *closed* building permit. This is particularly true given the instructions the title insurers give their lawyer agents that they do not need to conduct searches of the Building Dept.. Searches that could have revealed that the permit had yet to be inspected and closed! I will have more to say on this subject in my next post dealing with “Local Authority Search” coverage but it is also worth noting here that open building permits have been found to go to the root of title which would allow an additional avenue to claim under the marketable title parts of the policy. (See for example: [1854822 Ontario Ltd. v. The Estate of Manuel Martins, 2013 ONSC 4310](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2013/2013onsc4310/2013onsc4310.html) per Wilson, J.: *“In my opinion, the open building permit is not a minor defect; rather, it goes to the root of title and constitutes a valid objection to title.”*)

Building Permit coverage is canvassed in depth in [Gemeinhardt v Babic, 2016 ONSC 4707 (CanLII)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc4707/2016onsc4707.html) where, after reviewing various (disappointing) denials made by the insurer, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered:

*“Stewart Title shall pay the sum of $592,941.41 to Ms. Gemeinhardt being the replacement cost of house, additions and garage.”*

It can be very useful and valuable coverage. So, do not despair, help may be available to you.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Building Permit, Residential, Title Insurance

---

### [7 Steps to Take After a Slip and Fall Accident in Ontario](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-steps-to-take-after-a-slip-and-fall-accident-in-ontario/)

**Published:** August 7, 2024
**Author:** Ron Strike

**Excerpt:** Slip and fall accidents are more common than most people realize, and the aftermath can be costly. This guide explains what counts as a slip and fall under Ontario's premises liability rules and walks through the practical steps to take right after one, from documenting the scene to protecting your right to compensation.

**Content:**

## Introduction

In more than 40 years representing injured clients, I can tell you that slip and fall accidents are far more common, and far more serious, than most people assume. Thousands of Ontarians are hurt this way every year, and what you do in the days that follow can make the difference between a strong claim and no claim at all. This guide explains what a slip and fall is, the injuries it can cause, who may be responsible, the practical steps to take right away, and the deadlines you cannot afford to miss.

## What Counts as a Slip and Fall

A slip and fall happens when someone is hurt because of a hazard on another person’s property: a wet floor, an uneven surface, poor lighting, or, most often in this province, ice and snow. In Ontario these claims fall under the law of occupiers’ liability, which governs the responsibility of those who own or control a property toward the people who come onto it.

## Common Injuries

I have seen slip and fall injuries that range from minor cuts and bruises to permanent disability and, in the worst cases, death. Wrist, ankle, and hip fractures are common, often because a person puts out a hand or twists while trying to break a fall. Head injuries, from concussions to serious traumatic brain injuries, can follow a strike to the head on a hard surface. Spinal injuries can cause lasting pain or reduced mobility, and soft tissue injuries, though they sound minor, can be genuinely disabling. Because the seriousness of a fall is not always obvious at first, prompt medical attention matters both for your health and for any claim that follows.

## Who Is Responsible

Under Ontario’s *Occupiers’ Liability Act*, an occupier (the owner, a tenant, a property manager, or anyone else in control of the premises) must take reasonable care in all the circumstances to see that people on the property are reasonably safe. That includes maintaining the property and addressing hazards within a reasonable time. Liability turns on negligence: whether the occupier knew, or ought to have known, about the hazard and failed to deal with it as a reasonable occupier would have. Whether that standard was met in any given case depends on the facts and, often, on expert evidence about what reasonable maintenance required.

## 7 Steps to Take After a Slip and Fall

1. **Seek medical attention.** Have your injuries assessed and documented by a healthcare professional, even if you think you can walk it off. The medical record is the foundation of any later claim.
2. **Report the fall.** Tell the property owner, manager, or staff what happened and ask that an incident or accident report be completed. Note the name of the person you spoke with.
3. **Document the scene.** Photograph exactly where you fell and the hazard that caused it, ideally before anyone clears or repairs it. In a winter fall, capture the ice, snow, and any lack of salt or sand.
4. **Get witness details.** If anyone saw you fall, ask for their name and contact information. An independent witness can be decisive.
5. **Write down what happened.** Record your own account while it is fresh: the date, the time, the exact location, what you were doing, and the conditions. Keep the footwear you were wearing.
6. **Do not accept blame.** Be careful what you say at the scene and to any insurer. Do not apologize for the fall or speculate about fault, as those comments can be used against you later.
7. **Speak to a [personal injury lawyer](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) promptly.** This matters more than people realize, because slip and fall claims carry short notice deadlines, explained below. Getting advice early protects your rights before a deadline can quietly run out.

## Notice Periods and Deadlines

Slip and fall claims in Ontario run on more than one clock, and the most important one is short.

If your fall was caused by snow or ice on private property (a store parking lot, a condominium walkway, an apartment entrance, a commercial plaza), the *Occupiers’ Liability Act* requires you to give written notice of your claim within 60 days of the fall. This requirement was added by amendment and came into force on January 29, 2021 (section 6.1 of the Act). The notice has to set out the date, time, and location of the incident, and it must be personally served on, or sent by registered mail to, the occupier or the contractor responsible for snow and ice removal. Miss the 60-day window and your claim can be barred entirely, subject only to narrow exceptions, for example where the fall resulted in death, or where a judge is satisfied there was a reasonable excuse and the defendant is not prejudiced. Those exceptions are difficult to rely on, so the safe course is to give notice quickly and to the right parties.

The 60-day notice is not the same as starting a lawsuit. Even after giving notice, you generally still have two years from the date of the fall to begin the action under the *Limitations Act, 2002*.

Falls on [municipal property](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-municipal-litigation/) follow a different and tighter framework. A fall on a city sidewalk or road is governed by the *Municipal Act, 2001* (or, in Toronto, the *City of Toronto Act, 2006*), which can require written notice in as little as 10 days and holds a municipality responsible for snow and ice on a sidewalk only where its conduct amounts to gross negligence. Because the deadline that applies depends entirely on where and how you fell, this is the area where early legal advice pays off most.

## How I Can Help

Pursuing a slip and fall claim, especially against an insurer or a well-resourced property owner, is rarely straightforward. I can identify the right parties and serve notice in time, gather and preserve the evidence, retain the medical and other experts a serious claim requires, deal with the insurance adjusters, and take the matter to trial if a fair settlement cannot be reached. Every claim also moves at its own pace; here is a realistic look at [how long a personal injury claim takes](https://dcmlaw.ca/how-long-does-a-personal-injury-lawsuit-take-to-settle/). The earlier I am involved, the more I can do to protect your claim.

## Conclusion

A slip and fall can have life-altering consequences, but the law gives you a path to compensation if you act in time and protect your evidence. The single most important takeaway is the 60-day notice rule for snow and ice claims: it is short, it is strict, and it catches people off guard. If you have been injured in a fall, [contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) for a free consultation, and let us help you take the first step toward protecting your rights.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Occupiers' Liability, Slip and Fall

---

### [How Long Does A Personal Injury Lawsuit Take To Settle?](https://dcmlaw.ca/how-long-does-a-personal-injury-lawsuit-take-to-settle/)

**Published:** August 9, 2024
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Excerpt:** One of the most common questions injured clients ask is how long their case will take to settle. This post walks through every stage of a personal injury or medical malpractice lawsuit, from investigation and pleadings through discoveries, expert reports, mediation, pre-trial, and trial, with a realistic time estimate for each.

**Content:**

## Introduction

One of the first questions injured clients ask me is a simple one: how long will my case take to settle? It is rarely an idle question. When a serious injury keeps you from working and you are facing the cost of rehabilitation and attendant care, the prospect of waiting years for compensation can feel overwhelming.

If you were hurt in a car accident, Ontario’s no-fault accident benefit system provides some funds relatively quickly, and you may also have extended health or long-term disability coverage through your employer. For many seriously injured people, though, and especially those whose injuries fall outside the auto insurance system, those benefits fall well short of real financial security. That is what makes the timeline question so pressing.

There is no single answer, because every case is different. What I can do is walk you through the major stages of a [personal injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) or [medical malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-medical-malpractice/) lawsuit and give you a realistic sense of how long each one tends to take. One point worth knowing at the outset: in Ontario, most claims must be started within two years of the date you knew, or ought to have known, that you had a claim. Some situations carry shorter notice periods or different deadlines, so the safest step is always to get advice early.

## The Stages of a Lawsuit

### Investigation Stage

Every case begins with investigation, before a lawsuit is ever started. For a straightforward personal injury claim, that groundwork is often quick. For a complex medical malpractice claim, where we may need to assemble hospital records and obtain a preliminary opinion from a qualified expert before we can responsibly allege negligence, it takes much longer. Most investigations take 3 to 12 months.

### Pleadings

The pleadings are the formal court documents that start the lawsuit and set out each side’s position. Once we issue the claim, it has to be served on the defendants, and simply locating and serving them can take time. The defendants then have a set period to prepare and file their defence. Allowing for service and the exchange of pleadings, this stage usually takes 2 to 6 months.

### Discoveries

Discovery is the formal exchange of information between the parties before trial, and it has two parts. Documentary discovery comes first: each side produces the relevant documents in its possession. Oral discovery, the examination for discovery, follows. That is where one side’s lawyer questions the opposing party under oath, with the answers recorded by a court reporter and available for use as evidence at trial. Between producing documents, scheduling, and completing the examinations, along with the undertakings that often follow, discovery commonly takes 12 to 24 months.

### Expert Reports

Every personal injury and medical malpractice case turns on expert evidence, so once discovery is complete the focus shifts to finalizing expert reports. You may need to be assessed, in person or virtually, by one or more physicians. A simple claim might call for only one or two reports. A complex claim can require six or more, sometimes including foundational reports that other experts rely on. Because the best experts are in demand and need time to prepare, this stage can take 6 to 18 months.

### Mediation

Mediation is a without-prejudice meeting at which a neutral mediator helps the parties try to reach a settlement. It is mandatory in Toronto, Ottawa, and Windsor under the Rules of Civil Procedure and voluntary elsewhere, though it is usually worth doing wherever your case is based. It works: in my experience, roughly three out of four general personal injury cases settle at mediation. It tends to succeed less often in medical malpractice and other complex claims, where the parties’ positions can simply be too far apart. Sought-after mediators book up well in advance, so reaching this stage can take 6 to 12 months.

### Pre-trial

A pre-trial conference is a mandatory meeting with a judge and the parties, and the court will not let your case go to trial until it has happened. A pre-trial is scheduled only after a trial record is filed, which generally cannot happen until discoveries, and mediation where it applies, are complete. Expert reports also have to be served ahead of the pre-trial: as a rule, your own reports at least 90 days before, and any responding reports at least 60 days before. Most lawyers therefore want their expert evidence finalized before they request a date. The wait for a pre-trial varies by region, but it often takes 8 to 12 months.

### Trial

The great majority of cases settle somewhere along the way, but for those that do not, trial is the final destination, subject to any appeal. Civil trials do not have the priority that criminal matters do, so at many courthouses they are heard only in the spring or fall sittings. Judicial resources are scarce, and even a scheduled trial date is not guaranteed. It is not unusual for a trial to be adjourned when no judge is available. A case can sit on a trial list for 12 to 24 months before it is reached.

## Conclusion

Set out stage by stage, the process shows just how involved civil litigation is for anyone seeking compensation for a serious injury. Even relatively straightforward cases usually have to reach discovery before a sensible settlement opportunity appears. Some matters resolve earlier: a [slip and fall claim](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-steps-to-take-after-a-slip-and-fall-accident-in-ontario/), for instance, can sometimes be settled directly with an insurance adjuster before a lawsuit is even started. Medical malpractice claims are the opposite. They almost always run through discovery and a full exchange of expert reports before settlement becomes realistic, and they are fought harder, and reach trial more often, than any other kind of personal injury case.

For an uncomplicated claim, I tell clients that a genuine settlement opportunity usually arrives 18 to 24 months in. That timing often works out well, because most people need about that long to recover enough for their damages to be properly assessed. For a complicated claim, it can take 3 to 5 years to reach trial or a late-stage settlement.

If you are weighing a claim and want a realistic read on what it would involve and how long it might take, [contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) for a straightforward assessment.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Civil Litigation, Personal Injury Settlement, Rules of Civil Procedure

---

### [Strike Family Donates $500,000 to the Bowmanville Hospital Foundation](https://dcmlaw.ca/strike-family-donates-500000-to-the-bowmanville-hospital-foundation/)

**Published:** August 16, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is proud to recognize Ron Strike and his family for their $500,000 donation to the Bowmanville Hospital Foundation. After more than 40 years representing seriously injured clients across Clarington and Durham Region, Ron understands how much local, high-quality medical care matters to the community he serves.

**Content:**

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is proud to recognize [Ron Strike](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike/) and his family for their generous donation to the [Bowmanville Hospital Foundation](https://thebowmanvillehospitalfoundation.com/).

[Bowmanville Hospital](https://www.lakeridgehealth.on.ca/en/index.asp) is a vital part of the community that Ron serves, providing essential healthcare services to the residents of Clarington and Durham region. The Strike family’s donation will help support the ongoing efforts of the foundation to improve patient care and access to medical treatments.

Ron has been a long-time supporter of the Bowmanville Hospital Foundation. With over 40 years of representing people who have been seriously injured in car accidents as well other types of personal injury lawsuits, Ron understands the need for local, high-quality medical care for the residents of Bowmanville and the surrounding areas.

Thank-you Ron and family for your significant contribution to your community.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Community Involvement

---

### [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP 2024 Firm Summer Social](https://dcmlaw.ca/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp-2024-firm-summer-social/)

**Published:** August 21, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** On August 21, 2024, the lawyers and staff of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP gathered at the Ballroom Bowl in Toronto for an afternoon of bowling and friendly competition. Managing partner David Morin shared partnership news and recognized long-serving staff and lawyers, before the day wound down with pickleball next door.

**Content:**

On August 21, 2024, the lawyers and staff of [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/introducing-davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/) gathered at the [Ballroom Bowl](https://www.theballroombowl.ca/) in Toronto for an afternoon of fun and competition.

After hours of gameplay, one team reigned victorious earning the grand prize of the day. Several other bowlers earned individual awards for most strikes and most improved.

Managing partner [David Morin](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/) announced some exciting news for the partnership and milestone achievements of long-standing staff and lawyers.

At the end of the afternoon, [Jim Davidson](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson/) led a small group of stragglers onto the pickleball court next door at [RendezViews](https://rendezviews.ca/) for a fun end to the day.

**Categories:** Firm News

---

### [Introducing Peter Reinitzer to the Partnership](https://dcmlaw.ca/introducing-peter-reinitzer-to-the-partnership/)

**Published:** August 27, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is delighted to announce that Peter Reinitzer joined the partnership effective September 1, 2024. Based in the firm's Huntsville office, Peter built his practice in personal injury and property loss, completing eight Superior Court trials in his first three years and helping clarify the law in property damage and negligent construction cases affirmed on appeal.

**Content:**

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is delighted to announce that [Peter Reinitzer](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer/) has been welcomed into the partnership effective September 1, 2024. Peter’s extensive expertise in [personal injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#personal-injury) and [property loss](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#municipal-litigation) makes him an invaluable asset to our team.

Peter has built a distinguished career through his adept handling of complex personal injury cases and significant property loss claims. Upon joining Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP in its Huntsville office, Peter hit the ground running and completed eight trials at the Superior Court of Justice in his first three years at the firm, including second-chairing back-to-back trials on several occasions. Peter has enjoyed particular success in his property damage and negligent construction cases, several of which, affirmed on appeal, have helped clarify the law in these fields, including [Tokarz v Selwyn (Township), 2022 ONCA 246](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca246/2022onca246.html) and [Breen v Lake of Bays (Township), 2022 ONCA 626](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca626/2022onca626.html).

In addition to his legal prowess, Peter is known for his collaborative approach and dedication to client service. While certainly not shy of the courtroom, Peter works hard to find creative and collaborative resolutions where appropriate. Peter also speaks regularly at conferences and has shared his experiences and insights regarding advocacy in an online forum, municipal liability, and title insurance coverage. His partnership with Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP will undoubtedly enhance our capabilities and strengthen our commitment to providing top-tier legal representation. We are excited to welcome Peter to our team and look forward to the significant contributions he will make to our firm and our clients.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Construction Negligence, Court of Appeal, Property Loss

---

### [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada 2025 Edition](https://dcmlaw.ca/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp-lawyers-recognized-by-best-lawyers-in-canada-2025-edition/)

**Published:** August 29, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is proud to announce that six of its lawyers have been recognized in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada. David Morin, Jim Davidson, Paul Cahill, Chris Morrison, Joel Cormier, and Ron Strike were honoured across insurance law, medical negligence, and personal injury litigation, the result of a confidential peer-review process.

**Content:**

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is proud to announce that six of our lawyers have been recognized in the [2025 Edition of the Best Lawyers in Canada](https://www.bestlawyers.com/article/2025-best-lawyers-awards-canada-19th-edition/6073).

Huntsville, ON

- [David Morin](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/) (Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2025) 
    - Insurance Law

Toronto, ON

- [Jim Davidson](https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/jim-davidson/205053) (Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2018) 
    - Insurance Law
    - Personal Injury Litigation
- [Paul Cahill](https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/paul-cahill/271366) (Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2021) 
    - Medical Negligence
    - Personal Injury Litigation
- [Chris Morrison](https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/chris-morrison/317788) (Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2023) 
    - Personal Injury Litigation
- [Joel Cormier](https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/joel-cormier/317791) (Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2023) 
    - Personal Injury Litigation

Bowmanville, ON

- [Ron Strike](https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/ron-strike/348085) (Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2024) 
    - Personal Injury Litigation

[Best Lawyers](https://www.bestlawyers.com/about-us) is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication company in the legal profession. Recognition by Best Lawyers is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, conferred on a lawyer by their peers. For more than four decades, their publications have earned the respect of the profession, the media and the public as the most reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals anywhere.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Best Law Firm

---

### [Title Insurance Claims - Local Authority Search](https://dcmlaw.ca/title-insurance-claims-local-authority-search/)

**Published:** September 6, 2024
**Author:** David Morin

**Excerpt:** Local Authority Search coverage is one of the more useful protections in a residential title insurance policy, and one insurers tend to read narrowly. This commentary traces how the coverage developed, why a building permit that was only "opened" is not the same as one properly closed, and what that means when a homeowner later discovers unpermitted or uninspected work.

**Content:**

We concluded our most recent Commentary on Building Permit Coverage with the following:

*The title insurers have taken the position that if a building permit has simply been ‘applied for’ meaning it has been ‘opened’ then the permit has been ‘obtained’. We don’t agree. The coverage would be essentially useless if ‘obtained’ is read to mean ‘applied for’ or ‘opened’. There could easily be hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work that remained to be completed after a building permit was simply ‘opened’. For the coverage to make any sense it has to mean obtain a **closed** building permit. This is particularly true given the instructions the title insurers give their lawyer agents that they do not need to conduct searches of the Building Dept.. Searches that could have revealed that the permit had yet to be inspected and closed!*

When title insurance was first introduced into Canadian residential conveyancing in the mid-1990’s it was considered prohibitively expensive. Purchasers were funding legal fees and disbursements; inspection fees; transfer taxes; mortgage default insurance; and various other “Closing Costs”. Adding title insurance premium seemed unnecessary. The title insurers worked on this problem. The first thing they did was to add “Survey Coverage” alleviating the need to obtain a Land Survey which then cost roughly $1,000. I’ll have more to say on Survey Coverage in another Commentary. Succinctly – great coverage for Lenders, but whether right for Owners depends on many circumstances.

The second thing they did was help lawyers lower their quoted legal fees by (in our view illegally) kicking back $150 of premium to the lawyer ordering the policy. Insurers can’t pay commissions to unlicensed agents and lawyers are required to disclose to their clients they did NOT receive a fee but the practice continues.

A third way for the premium to “pay for itself” was to reduce the number of searches (and search costs charged to clients as disbursements) that lawyers were required to conduct before the policy could issue. Before title insurance lawyers would write to various departments of the Municipality/Region where the property was located. Lawyers had to write the letter(s); know the local fee structure; send the letter(s) with their firm’s cheque enclosed; demand a reply, review the reply(ies); discuss any issues with their clients; then requisition and negotiate any issues with the lawyer representing the Vendor. Hard to keep your quote for fees and disbursements low and still do all this work – no matter how much was actually done by your law clerks.

The title insurers solved the problem for the lawyers ordering their policies. They included *“Local Authority Search”* coverage in their policies.

Here is the language of the Covered Risk (#30) in First Canadian Title’s form of Owner’s policy:

*“Any adverse circumstance affecting the Land which would have been disclosed by a Local Authority Search of the Land at the Policy Date.”*

Let’s start with the capitalized (and therefore defined) terms. It is striking that the title insurers continue to argue, and that Courts since the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MacDonald continue to find, that title polices cover only *title* matters. FCT defines “Title” as:

*“the estate or interest described in Schedule “A”, which would customarily be registered in the Public Records. “Title” is not affected by matters relating only to any improvements on the Land, unless notice of those matters is registered in the Public Records as of the Policy Date”.*

“Public Records” are: *“records established and maintained under the applicable provincial or territorial legislation dealing with the registration of title to an interest in land”.*

*“*Land” is however separately defined. (Makes on wonder if we should stop calling these “title insurance” policies. In fact, for years FCT has called theirs a *“Home Ownership Protection Policy”.*)

“Land” is defined by FCT as:

*“the land or condominium unit described in Schedule A, and any improvements on the Land which are real property”.*

In other words – the house, garage, shed, studio, outhouse and anything else built on the property that is not personal property like appliances, furniture and clothes.

The “Policy Date” is almost always the day your purchase closed but another capitalized term requires explanation – “Local Authority Search”. FCT defines “Local Authority Search” as:

*“any search of local government records pertaining to the Land which would customarily be required by a solicitor qualified to practice law in the Province of Ontario in the normal course of a real estate transaction”.*

\[It is worth noting this definition has an apparent “shelf-life” as solicitors are *customarily* performing fewer and fewer searches!\]. No one would argue however that solicitors would not customarily search the records of the Building Department of the relevant Municipality or Region in the normal course of a real estate transaction.

This is why I look at *Local Authority Search* coverage when interpreting *Building Permit Coverage*. To sell more policies through more lawyers the insurers have told those lawyers they do not need to conduct certain Local Authority Searches, including Building Dept. searches. Searches they would have been required to conduct to meet the standard of care required by the Law Society of Ontario were the lawyer issuing their firm’s legal opinion rather than selling the insurer’s policy.

For a title insurer to deny a Building Permit claim on the basis that a permit appeared to have been applied for, and even partially inspected, strikes us as a bad faith denial. It was the insurer’s decision (to avoid the cost and time associated with writing the Building Dept.) that is the reason the insured did not learn the permit had simply been “opened” and not been finally inspected and closed. It is the insurers’ underwriting decision that prevented the insured from learning of the issue in time to raise the matter with the Vendor(s).

In these circumstances it is extremely disappointing when title insurers deny otherwise valid Building Permit claims on the basis that a Building Permit had simply been ‘opened’. In my next commentary we will discuss what can happen, and what to do, when information about the Land is uncovered before your deal closes.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Building Permit, Residential, Title Insurance

---

### [Court Awards Costs of $195,000 After Two Day Motion](https://dcmlaw.ca/court-awards-costs-of-195000-after-two-day-motion/)

**Published:** September 27, 2024
**Author:** Chris Morrison

**Excerpt:** The defence was universally successful on a hard-fought set of motions in Avedian v Enbridge Gas Distribution, including the plaintiff's bids to strike the defences and to recuse the trial judge. The court awarded $195,000 in costs, well above the usual range for a motion, and its reasons are a clear reminder of the price unnecessary and tactical motions impose on clients and the court.

**Content:**

Several months ago, I posted the decision of Darla Wilson J. (as she then was) in a case involving 3 motions in the case [*Avedian* v. *Enbridge Gas Distribution,* ONSC 2376 (CanLII)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc2376/2024onsc2376.html).

The motions brought by the plaintiff were to strike the defences of the responding parties and to disqualify her Honour as trial judge. My client and the third party and defendant in turn had brought a motion seeking directions as to whether the plaintiffs were allowed a decade into the litigation to pursue a new theory of damages after the court had previously instructed them to plead the damages which they were pursuing (and had disallowed the proposed amendment – which was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

We were universally successful on the motion and the Court had to deal with the issue of costs. The decision itself is not groundbreaking, however as is her practice Wilson J.A. set out in clear and explicit terms the general principles surrounding costs and her findings.

Notably the Court did not shy away from dealing directly with what in a normal motion would seem to be a very high quantum noting:

*Turning to the appropriate quantum, and considering the factors enumerated in r. 57.01 of the Rules, I must award a sum that is reasonable in the circumstances. I am mindful of the fact that the Defendants’ counsel provided joint submissions in order to minimize overlapping work. Counsel acknowledged that the amounts sought are much higher than would normally be awarded for motions, but they stress that given the types of assertions being made, the necessary materials required a great deal of work. Counsel made the argument that their clients were required to respond to these motions, and in doing so, they have incurred exorbitant costs. As well, the Plaintiffs’ motions were rejected in their entirety, and the Defendants’ motion was found to be reasonable and their position accepted by the court. I agree.*

There are important lessons to be learned when considering cases such as this. As noted in the Courts decision these motions resulted in unwarranted costs and delay. They demonstrated an unwillingness by the Plaintiff to accept the consequences of the Court of Appeals decision, and in the case of the recusal motion was brought for tactical reasons.

As litigators motions are a fact of life. Unnecessary motions however cost the clients considerable money, tie up court resources and delay the resolution of this matter. My own philosophy is attempt to avoid motion court wherever possible, recognizing that there are some motions worth fighting. Awards such as this demonstrate in my view the reasonableness of this philosophy.

Again my thanks to my Co-Counsel [Kirk Boggs](https://www.lerners.ca/kirk-boggs/) who drafted our cost submission and [James Norton](https://zubco.com/our-people/james-norton/) who assisted in editing.

The full costs decision can be [downloaded here](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Avedian-v.-Enbridge-Gas-Distribution-Costs-Endorsement-dated-September-24-2024.pdf).

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Civil Litigation, Costs, Ontario Superior Court, Rules of Civil Procedure

---

### [Title Insurance Exclusions - "Suffered, Created or Assumed" and "Known to the Insured but not the Insurer"](https://dcmlaw.ca/title-insurance-exclusions-suffered-created-or-assumed-and-known-to-the-insured-but-not-the-insurer/)

**Published:** October 1, 2024
**Author:** David Morin

**Excerpt:** The "Building Permit" and "Local Authority Search" coverages in a residential title insurance policy come with exclusions homeowners need to recognize. This commentary looks at two of them, "suffered, created or assumed" and "known to the insured but not the insurer," and explains how the duty of utmost good faith and the policy's defined terms shape what is actually covered.

**Content:**

In our first three commentaries on the residential title insurance polices available today we discussed two coverages – “[Building Permit](https://dcmlaw.ca/building-permit-claims-under-a-title-insurance-policy/)” coverage and its sometimes related “[Local Authority Search](https://dcmlaw.ca/title-insurance-claims-local-authority-search/)” coverage. While these coverages can be of use to insured homeowners who discover construction defects there are exclusions that readers need to recognize.

Colloquially these exclusions are referred to as: (1) *“Suffered, Created or Assumed”*; (2) *“Known to the Insured but not the Insurer”* and (3) the “*Police Power*” exclusion. I will discuss the “*Police Power*” exclusion in my next Commentary.

Chicago Title’s Residential Policy excludes:

3. *Risks*

*(a) that are created, allowed or agreed to by You, whether or not they are registered in the Public Records*

Put plainly if you contracted to buy your house subject to a registered, or an unregistered, easement in favour of your neighbour you can’t then seek compensation under the Policy. Similarly, if you bought your house despite the Vendor having disclosed to you that the Municipality had just issued a Work Order the Insurer will deny coverage. The policy assumes in both these instances that you were aware of these “flaws” and they either did not bother you at the time or you were able to negotiate a discount. You agreed to them and can’t then look to the Insurer for compensation.

Chicago Title’s Residential Policy also excludes:

3. *Risks*

*(b) that are actually Known to You, but not to the Company, on the Date of Policy, unless they are registered in the Public Records at the Date of Policy*

As with any type of insurance you can’t expect compensation if you failed to disclose something you knew to your Insurer. Insurance contracts are contracts of “utmost good faith” *(“uberrima fides”*) meaning both sides need to be totally honest with each other as they enter the contract, during the contract, and during any claims process(es). Note we again have some defined terms to deal with. “Known” is defined by Chicago Title as *“Actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge or notice that may be imputed to an Insured by reason of the Public Records or any other records that impart constructive notice of matters affecting the Title”.* “You” is defined as the Insured together with essentially spouses and kids. The definition of Public Records and Date of Policy were discussed in earlier Commentaries.

It is interesting that “*Company*”, though capitalized, is not defined in the Chicago Title policy. One can assume that “Company” means Chicago Title but what does “Chicago Title” mean? How are you, as a prospective insured, expected to “get” everything you actually know into the knowledge of “Chicago Title”? At the “Date of Policy” you likely do not have their contact information. Your solicitor is ordering the policy and “dealing with” the Insurer. Your solicitor has their contact information.

Your solicitor, a solicitor that is your fiduciary, has recommended that you purchase title insurance; has recommended which Insurer you purchase your policy from; has conducted the due diligence required by that Insurer; has collected the premium from you and remitted it to the title insurer; may have (in our view illegally) kept some of that premium as some sort of ‘fee’; and has delivered your copy of your policy to you. In other words, your solicitor has acted not solely as your fiduciary, but as the Insurer’s agent. Your lawyer has met all of the criteria necessary to be an “Agent” as that term is defined in Ontario’s [Insurance Act](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i08).

This fact begs some questions. If something is known to an agent of the Company – is it known to the Company? We believe that it is. If something is known to an agent of the Company, but not to you, can the Company rely on an exclusion like 3(b) on the basis that “*your lawyer knew even if you didn’t*” to deny coverage given “*your* lawyer” is “*their* agent”? This is an important question given it is your lawyer/their agent that is doing most of the searching mandated by the underwriting requirements of the Insurer that would, or should, reveal “something”.

We acted for the Insured homeowner in [*Breen* v. *FCT Insurance Company Ltd.*, 2019 ONCA 598 (CanLII)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2019/2019onca598/2019onca598.html), where the Ontario Court of Appeal, in obiter, referenced FCT’s version of Exclusion #3 at paragraph \[28\]:

*“As will be seen from my analysis above, the title risk for which Mr. Breen claims coverage in this case – namely, the alleged failings by the Township in the building permit process – was known to him. Mr. Breen’s conveyancing solicitor expressly recognized the issue and provided advice on it.”*

We were able to successfully bring an action against the Municipality (see: [*Breen* v. *Lake of Bays (Township)*, 2022 ONCA 626 (CanLII)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca626/2022onca626.html) so the issue of the knowledge of “Mr. Breen’s conveyancing solicitor” being the knowledge of FCT was not raised.

In this context it is worth noting the following. The definition of “Known” cited above excludes constructive knowledge or notice that may be imputed to the “Insured” but is silent on constructive knowledge or notice that may be imputed to the “Insurer”. As the constructive and imputed knowledge of the Insurer is not specifically excluded, we take the position that “known” to the Company includes constructive and imputed knowledge of the Insurer. In other words, one does not have to agree that lawyers are acting as agents of the title insurers to conclude what’s known to the lawyer is known to the Insurer.

There is another point to be made however for those that have difficulty seeing conveyancing solicitors as insurance agents. To avoid paying a $72.00 Real Estate Transaction Levy to the [Law Society of Ontario](https://lso.ca/home) (the “LSO”) conveyancing solicitors must order title insurance from an insurer that has entered into the LSO’s form of “Release and Indemnity Agreement”. Pursuant to that agreement your Insurer has agreed (1) not to sue your lawyer; (2) to indemnify your lawyer and [LawPRO](https://www.lawpro.ca/) (your lawyer’s Errors and Omissions Insurer) in the event your lawyer was negligent – for example by failing to pass knowledge on to the Insurer; and (3) pay your lawyer’s legal fees should your lawyer be sued.

In other words, were you to sue your lawyer for failing to pass some knowledge on to the Insurer you’d essentially be suing the Insurer.

In these circumstances can anyone doubt that conveyancing solicitors are acting as insurance agents?

My next Commentary will discuss the seemingly broad “Police Power” exclusion.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Exclusions, Residential, Title Insurance

---

### [Don't Slip Up: Why Hiring a Lawyer is Critical after a Slip and Fall](https://dcmlaw.ca/dont-slip-up-why-hiring-a-lawyer-is-critical-after-a-slip-and-fall/)

**Published:** October 21, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Slip and fall accidents can look routine and still cause serious injury and financial loss. In the 2024 case of Ranger v Triovest, a winter fall in a crosswalk near a Walmart led to joint liability against the property manager and its maintenance contractor under the Occupiers' Liability Act, with no contributory negligence found. The decision shows why experienced counsel matters when negligent winter maintenance is in issue.

**Content:**

Slip and fall accidents may seem common, but they can result in serious injuries and financial burdens. When these accidents are due to someone else’s negligence, it is critical to hire a lawyer to help navigate the legal process and secure rightful compensation.

The recent 2024 case of [*Carmen Ranger* v. *Triovest Realty Advisors*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc1782/2024onsc1782.html) et al. is a powerful reminder of this. On a wintry day in 2013, Carmen Ranger slipped and fell in a crosswalk near a Walmart store managed by Triovest Realty Advisors. She later sued Triovest and other entities under the [*Occupiers’ Liability Act*](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o02) (“OLA”), arguing they inadequately maintained the property during winter weather conditions.

Despite the defendants’ assertion of having implemented a winter maintenance system, the court ruled in Ranger’s favor, highlighting significant deficiencies in their system, including a lack of specific measures to manage icy conditions. Furthermore, the area where Ranger fell – a heavily frequented crosswalk – had not been given extra attention in the maintenance system, a fault the court deemed negligent on Triovest’s part.

Additionally, another defendant, Pioneer Construction, fell under scrutiny for not adequately monitoring the property for icy conditions. Triovest and Pioneer were found jointly liable for the plaintiff’s damages, indicating a breach of their obligations under the OLA, with no contributory negligence attributed to Ranger, who was deemed to have acted reasonably in the situation.

This case exemplifies the potential complexities of slip and fall lawsuits and underscores the importance of having a competent legal guide to bring negligent parties to account. Hiring a lawyer in such incidents can be vital to gathering the necessary evidence, defending victims’ rights, and securing a favorable verdict.

If you’re unfortunate enough to slip and fall due to someone else’s negligence, don’t be left out in the cold. Contact the personal injury lawyers of [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/occupiers-liability-lawyers/) to get the compensation you deserve.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Occupiers' Liability, Slip and Fall

---

### [Electric Vehicle Fire Risk in Car Accidents](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-risk-of-electric-vehicle-catching-fire-in-car-accidents/)

**Published:** October 24, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** After a fatal Tesla crash on Toronto's Lake Shore Boulevard, this post examines the fire risk that can follow a serious electric vehicle collision. It looks at how lithium-ion batteries and thermal runaway behave in a crash, the safety questions these vehicles raise, and what accident victims should keep in mind.

**Content:**

As reported by [CP24](https://www.cp24.com/local/toronto/2024/10/24/four-people-dead-after-vehicle-crashes-into-guardrail-in-downtown-toronto/), tragic news came out of Toronto in the early morning hours of October 24th, 2024, when a fiery crash resulted in the deaths of four individuals, all believed to be in their 20s. At this point, the cause of the accident is still unknown. The incident occurred just after midnight on Lake Shore Boulevard in downtown Toronto. A Tesla vehicle, carrying five passengers, crashed into a guardrail and was quickly engulfed in flames. Four of the five passengers did not survive the crash, and the fifth – a woman – was seriously injured but is expected to survive. She is currently being treated at a local hospital.

Images from the scene convey the severity of the crash, with the once-intact vehicle now charred and crumpled. Police have been investigating on-site, providing a heavy presence as they work to piece together what exactly happened. This tragic event led to a temporary closure of Lake Shore Boulevard between the Don Valley Parkway and Cherry Street. The road has since reopened as of 8:30 a.m.

In recent years, Tesla has become synonymous with innovation and cutting-edge technology in the automotive industry. However, the rise of these advanced vehicles has also been accompanied by a growing concern over car accidents and the alarming instances of cars catching fire. For safety advocates, Tesla owners, and car accident victims alike, understanding these issues is not just important—it’s essential. This blog post aims to provide a comprehensive insight into Tesla car accidents and fires, offering valuable information and actionable advice for everyone involved.

According to the [Tesla Fire](https://www.tesla-fire.com/) website, as of October 24, 2024, there have been 232 confirmed cases of Tesla vehicles catching fire, with 83 of these incidents tragically leading to fatalities. These incidents occurred in various countries, notably the USA, China, and the Netherlands, and ranged from spontaneous combustion in garages, to crashes resulting in fires. The causes varied greatly, involving circumstances such as thermal runaway, charging station malfunctions, and external elements such as road debris. It is important to note, however, that the frequency of Tesla car fires compared to other car brands is not extensively documented, though Tesla Model S and X fires not caused by collisions or vandalism are reportedly the highest in their categories.

## Understanding Tesla Car Accidents

Tesla cars have captured the attention of both enthusiasts and skeptics. Analyzing accident statistics reveals that, while Tesla vehicles have some impressive safety ratings, they are not immune to accidents. Compared to traditional cars, Tesla accidents often involve new factors like autopilot malfunctions and battery-related incidents. High-speed collisions also remain a concern due to the vehicle’s powerful acceleration capabilities.

The unique scenarios leading to Tesla car accidents often revolve around technology. Autopilot malfunctions, although rare, have been highlighted in several high-profile cases. Battery fires present another unique challenge, as the lithium-ion batteries are prone to thermal runaway under certain conditions. Understanding these scenarios helps contextualize the risks associated with Tesla vehicles.

Despite these concerns, it’s important to recognize that many Tesla accidents result from common driving errors and poor road conditions. Human error, distracted driving, and weather-related factors still contribute significantly to the likelihood of accidents. Acknowledging this broad spectrum of causes is crucial for a balanced understanding of Tesla’s accident profile.

## Safety Measures Implemented by Tesla

Tesla has not shied away from equipping their vehicles with advanced safety features. The Autopilot system, for instance, has been designed to assist drivers by maintaining lane discipline, adjusting speeds according to traffic, and even changing lanes. This system has the potential to reduce human error, a leading cause of car accidents.

Another crucial component of Tesla’s safety framework is its robust battery management system. This system continuously monitors battery performance, ensuring optimal operation and reducing the likelihood of overheating. Coupled with Tesla’s unique structural design, which includes a low center of gravity, these features collectively enhance the vehicle’s stability and safety during collisions.

However, technology alone cannot eliminate risks. Tesla owners are encouraged to remain vigilant and engaged with these systems. While Autopilot provides a level of convenience, it’s essential for drivers to remain alert and ready to intervene should the need arise. Tesla’s pursuit of safety is a partnership between technology and user responsibility.

## Causes of Tesla Fires

Car fires are serious occurrences that demand attention and understanding, especially with electric vehicles like Teslas. One primary cause of Tesla fires is damage to the battery pack. The battery, consisting of thousands of individual cells, can become hazardous if compromised, leading to a thermal runaway event.

Thermal runaway is a phenomenon where a battery cell overheats and causes a chain reaction with adjacent cells, potentially leading to a fire. External factors, such as collisions, can exacerbate this risk. The intense energy stored within the battery can become a source of danger if not adequately managed.

It’s also worth noting that manufacturing defects and improper maintenance can contribute to the risk of fires. Understanding these underlying causes allows Tesla owners and safety advocates to be more informed and proactive in preventing such incidents. Regular checks and prompt repairs are vital components of fire risk mitigation.

## Prevention Guide for Tesla Owners

For Tesla owners, proactive measures can significantly reduce the risk of accidents and fires. Regular maintenance is paramount. Ensuring that the vehicle’s software is up-to-date and that the battery health is monitored regularly can prevent many potential issues from escalating.

Cautious use of Autopilot is another crucial aspect. While this feature enhances safety, it is not a substitute for attentive driving. Owners should be familiar with the system’s capabilities and limitations, using it as an aid rather than a replacement for active engagement.

Finally, cultivating an awareness of battery health is essential. Owners should avoid extreme temperatures and monitor charging habits to preserve battery integrity. Familiarizing oneself with emergency procedures related to battery fires can also provide peace of mind and preparedness in unforeseen situations.

## Safety Recommendations for the Auto Industry

Tesla and other car manufacturers have a pivotal role in enhancing vehicle safety. Continued investment in research and development to improve battery technology, crash prevention systems, and emergency response protocols is vital. Collaboration with safety advocates and regulatory bodies is essential to establish industry-wide standards that minimize risks.

Innovative solutions, such as advanced driver-assistance systems, can further enhance safety by reducing human error. Incorporating redundant systems and improving the reliability of existing technologies will also contribute to a safer driving experience.

Furthermore, education and awareness campaigns for both drivers and the general public can foster a culture of safety. Promoting responsible driving habits and encouraging regular vehicle inspections are steps towards a safer automotive landscape.

## Conclusion

The recent death of 4 young people in a fiery car accident involving a Tesla is both tragic and alarming. The conversation around Tesla car accidents and fires must continue. By understanding the unique challenges and safety measures associated with these vehicles, safety advocates, Tesla owners, and car accident victims can approach this topic with knowledge and preparedness.

Staying informed and proactive in ensuring vehicle safety is not just the responsibility of manufacturers; it is a shared commitment among all stakeholders. By contributing to this ongoing dialogue and sharing experiences, everyone can play a part in shaping a safer future on the roads.

Tesla owners are encouraged to engage actively with their vehicles’ features, stay abreast of safety updates, and participate in discussions surrounding automotive safety. Together, we can work towards a world where innovation and safety go hand in hand, ensuring the well-being of all road users.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Electric Vehicles, Motor Vehicle Accident

---

### [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP Ranked by Best Law Firms™ - Canada in 2025](https://dcmlaw.ca/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp-ranked-by-best-law-firms-canada-in-2025/)

**Published:** October 31, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP has been recognized in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms Canada, the peer-and-client-reviewed ranking published by Best Lawyers. The firm earned National Tier 1 standing in Insurance Law and Personal Injury Litigation, National Tier 2 in Medical Negligence, and Regional Tier 1 rankings across Greater Ontario and Toronto.

**Content:**

[Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/104420/CA) has been recognized in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms™ – Canada, a testament to its unwavering commitment to legal excellence. Ranked by [Best Law Firms](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/) in 3 practice areas and regionally in 3 practice areas, Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP has distinguished itself in the legal industry, earning this prestigious accolade.

Firms included in the 2025 Best Law Firms™ – Canada list are recognized for professional excellence with impressive ratings from clients and peers. To be considered for this milestone achievement, at least one lawyer in the law firm must be recognized in the 2025 edition of [*The Best Lawyers in Canada™*](https://www.bestlawyers.com/global-presence/canada).

“At Best Lawyers, we are proud to recognize law firms that show an unwavering commitment to excellence, innovation, and client satisfaction,” said Philip Greer, Chief Executive Officer of Best Lawyers. “In the legal arena, credibility is earned through consistent quality, which has propelled these firms to the forefront of the legal industry.”

Achieving a ranking in Best Law Firms signifies high-quality legal practice and a depth of legal proficiency. Recognized firms, categorized into three tiers, receive acclaim on both national and metropolitan levels, reflecting the extent of their practice and geographic reach. Receiving a tier designation represents an elite status, reflecting the integrity and reputation earned by law firms.

The 2025 edition of Best Law Firms™ – Canada includes rankings in 34 national practice areas and 68 metropolitan-based practice areas. The transparent, collaborative [research process](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/methodology/canada) employs qualitative and quantitative data from peer and client reviews, supported by proprietary algorithmic technology, to produce a tiered system of industry-led rankings of the top 2% of the industry.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP received the following rankings in the 2025 Best Law Firms™ – Canada:

- National Tier 1 
    - Insurance Law
    - Personal Injury Litigation
- National Tier 2 
    - Medical Negligence
- Regional Tier 1 
    - Greater Ontario 
        - Insurance Law
    - Toronto 
        - Insurance Law
        - Medical Negligence
        - Personal Injury Litigation

## About Best Law Firms®

Best Law Firms®, ranked by Best Lawyers® and respected for over 14 years, is the most credible ranking of exceptional law firms globally. It is rooted in a rigorous, peer-to-peer, industry-driven evaluation. A ranking from Best Law Firms signifies a high-quality practice and a breadth of legal expertise. Ranked firms, presented in three tiers, are recognized on a national and metropolitan scale, providing legal professionals with an elevated stature from the Best Law Firms recognition. For more information, visit [www.bestlawfirms.com](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/).

## About Best Lawyers®

Best Lawyers® is the oldest and most respected peer-review research and marketing company in the legal profession. Best Lawyers compiles extensive recognitions by conducting exhaustive peer-review surveys in which tens of thousands of leading lawyers confidentially evaluate the work of their fellow legal professionals within their local market and specialty. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore, recognition by Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. For more information, visit [www.bestlawyers.com](https://www.bestlawyers.com/).

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Best Law Firm

---

### [Title Insurance - Police Powers Exclusion](https://dcmlaw.ca/title-insurance-police-powers-exclusion/)

**Published:** November 11, 2024
**Author:** David Morin

**Excerpt:** The "Police Powers" exclusion in a Canadian title insurance policy reads as though it swallows almost everything, and some insurers deny claims on that basis. In fact it has to be parsed closely: it carves out a long list of Covered Risks, including building permit and local authority search coverage. This commentary walks through how the exclusion actually works and why a denial that leans on it should not be taken at face value.

**Content:**

My [last commentary](https://dcmlaw.ca/title-insurance-exclusions-suffered-created-or-assumed-and-known-to-the-insured-but-not-the-insurer/) discussed two Exclusions found in the title insurance policies sold in Canada today. These Exclusions are known as the “*suffered, created or assumed*”, and the “*known to the Insured but not disclosed to the Insurer*” Exclusions. As promised this Commentary will discuss what is colloquially known as the “Police Powers” Exclusion.

At first “blush” this Exclusion appears to exclude just about everything. Regrettably we have seen denials from title insurers that reference this Exclusion in a very aggressive way. Title insurers, and the lawyers that sell their policies, suggest to Insureds that they can make claims on their own behalf. I realize this is a self-serving comment but we do not recommend that you approach your title insurer directly. Unless your potential claim is for a very small amount, we recommend you retain a lawyer with title insurance claims experience. While your first thought might be to retain the lawyer that sold you the policy, I’m afraid that in most cases you can’t. To receive a small commission of premium from the title insurer your lawyer had to sign a contract with the title insurer agreeing not to act for you in the event of a conflict with, or claim against, that title insurer. We consider this a disappointing practice.

While regrettably the title insurers have not agreed to a standard form of policy (they have in the US) most Canadian policies contain an Exclusion that reads like this one taken from Chicago Title’s Ontario residential policy:

*You are not insured against loss, costs, legal and/or notarial fees, and expenses resulting from:*

*Governmental police power and the existence or violation of any law, by-law, order, code or government regulation. This includes laws, by-laws, orders, codes and regulations concerning:*

*(a) zoning;*

*(b) land use;*

*(c) improvements on the Land;*

*(d) land division; and*

*(e) environmental protection.*

*This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters, which appear in the Public Records at Date of Policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risks 9(a), 15, 21(b), (c) and (d), 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 33.*

What? Doesn’t this seem to exclude just about every bit of coverage found in the Policy? We’ve certainly had clients that thought so. We’ve also seen insurers tell them so. This Exclusion has to be closely parsed. First note that it does not “*limit the coverage*” found in a long numerical list of Covered Risks. It does not limit the “Building Permit” coverage described in my Second Commentary. It is Covered Risk # 23 in Chicago’s Policy and is therefore excluded from the exclusion. It does not apply to the “Local Authority Search” coverage described in my Third Commentary. That coverage is Covered Risk #34 in Chicago’s Policy and while #34 is not listed the way Covered Risk #33 “Building Permit” is listed there is a clear intention to exclude Local Authority Search coverage from the exclusion found in the words *“This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters, which appear in the Public Records at Date of Policy.”*

Although excluded in slightly different ways both the “Building Permit” and the “Local Authority Search” Covered Risks described in my earlier Commentaries are not excluded by the “Police Powers” Exclusion. I would prefer however that the title insurers included “Local Authority Search” coverage in their numerical lists at the end of the Exclusion. Perhaps they fear it would be redundant to do so.

Now what is “Governmental police power”? It is worth noting that the other insurers have dropped, or never used, the word “police”. Chicago may have dropped it as well but their policies are not available for review on their website. Is there a difference between “Governmental Power” and “Governmental Police Power”?

The key word is “power” and we suggest it does not matter whether “power” is modified by the word “police”. We all understand that Governments have powers. Originally title insurance was concerned solely with searches of “title” normally conducted at a “Registry” or “Land Title” office. Since the mid-1990’s however residential title insurance in Canada has included various coverages that are not strictly title matters. They include coverages like “Building Permit” and “Local Authority Search” coverages related to the house and other improvements that might have no impact on “title”. Government power can be “exercised” but to be covered by title insurance it needs to be recorded, registered, filed, etc. such that it could be found by the Insurer or its agent (normally the lawyer). Of course, the “Local Authority Search” coverage is structured in a way that we need to know what “would have been found” had the Search been conducted on the Policy Date (normally the day of closing).

Here is an example. Imagine a Municipality issued a Work Order to your Vendor on June 27th. Your purchase closed on June 29th but the Municipality did not record the Work Order in the Building Dept. Public Records until July 2nd. Depending on other circumstances you may have a claim against your Vendor for failing to disclose their receipt of the Work Order; or you may have a claim against the Municipality if it failed to meet its standard of care in recording the Work Order in a timely fashion; or you may have a claim against your conveyancing solicitor if he/she was prompted, but failed, to make further inquiry, but on a strict reading of the Exclusion you might not have a claim under the Policy.

Final note. Some of the policies sold by lawyers in Ontario today come with a Cover Letter addressed to the Insured that includes a statement like this one from Chicago Title:

*“In the event you need to make a claim under your policy, our claims centre is here to help. You do not need a lawyer to submit a claim, just simply visit our website at www.ctic.ca to complete the online Notice of Claim Form. If you have questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us at 1-888-868-XXXX or by email xxx@claims.ca”*

While these polices are sometimes referred to as “plain language” policies I trust these Commentaries are helping to show that while the language may appear “plain” the interpretation of the Covered Risks, Exclusions, and their application to concepts of Real Property Law are complex. As noted above we don’t recommend you try to claim on your own.

My next commentary will discuss arguably one of the least well understood concepts central to every title policy – *“Unmarketability of Title”.*

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Building Permit, Exclusions, Title Insurance

---

### [Non-Earner Benefits Denied Because of Medical Malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/non-earner-benefits-denied-because-of-medical-malpractice/)

**Published:** December 4, 2024
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Excerpt:** It is not uncommon for a car accident victim to suffer further harm through medical negligence while being treated for accident-related injuries. In Midak v RSA, the Licence Appeal Tribunal denied non-earner benefits after finding the claimant's traumatic brain injury arose from a later fall at a pain clinic, not the accident itself. The decision is a useful study in causation and the interplay between malpractice and statutory accident benefits.

**Content:**

On November 22, 2024, the [Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal](https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat-aabs/) denied non-earner benefits to a car accident victim who suffered a traumatic brain injury (“TBI”) after falling off an examination table in the course of receiving a pain injection after the accident in the case of [*Midak* v. *RSA Insurance Company*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlat/doc/2024/2024canlii118765/2024canlii118765.html).

It is not uncommon for a car accident victim to subsequently suffer further harm through medical negligence while being treated for accident related injuries. This decision illustrates the importance of understanding the interplay between medical malpractice and statutory accident benefits.

## What Are Non-Earner Benefits?

Non-earner benefits are a type of compensation that may be available to individuals who are injured in a car accident in Ontario and are unable to carry out all their activities of daily living. These benefits are meant to provide financial support for those who did not have a regular income prior to the accident, such as students, stay-at-home parents or retirees.

To be eligible for non-earner benefits, the individual must demonstrate that they were completely unable to carry on with their daily activities and had no employment at the time of the accident. This means that if you were working part-time or self-employed at the time of the accident, you would not qualify for these benefits.

In order to receive non-earner benefits, the injured individual must also meet certain criteria set out by their insurance company.

## What Was the Medical Malpractice?

The LAT accepted that a motor vehicle accident had occurred, however, it was not satisfied that this was the cause of the applicant’s head injury.

The facts of that case were that the applicant had fallen off an examination table in the course of receiving an injection. This happened at a pain clinic several months after the car accident. This incident was the subject of litigation for professional negligence before the [Ontario Superior Court of Justice](https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/). As a result of falling, the applicant suffered a TBI.

## Why Were the Non-Earner Benefits Denied?

Section 12(1) of the *Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule* – *Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016* provides that an insurer shall pay a non-earner benefit to an insured person who sustains an impairment as a result of the accident, if the insured person suffers a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of and within 104 weeks after the accident.

Section 3(7)(a) defines a “complete inability to carry on a normal life” as “an impairment that continuously prevents the person from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which the person ordinarily engaged before the accident.”

The Court of Appeal set out the guiding principles for non-earner benefit entitlement in *Heath v. Economical Mut. Ins. Co.*, [2009 ONCA 391](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca391/2009onca391.html), which, generally, focuses on a comparison of the applicant’s pre- and post-accident activities.

The LAT accepted that the applicant did demonstrate through her testimony and medical evidence that she did suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life within 104 weeks after the accident

However, it further found that the most significant component of the inability to lead a normal life was related to her TBI, which the LAT found not to be as a result of the accident because:

1. It was clearly an independent injury from the accident injuries,
2. It occurred some months afterward the car accident, and
3. The applicant has chosen to address her TBI by way of a lawsuit.

For the above reasons, the applicant’s non-earner benefits were denied due to intervening medical malpractice.

**Categories:** Medical Malpractice

**Tags:** Accident Benefits, Causation, Licence Appeal Tribunal, Motor Vehicle Accident, Non-Earner Benefits

---

### [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP 2024 Holiday Party](https://dcmlaw.ca/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp-2024-holiday-party/)

**Published:** December 12, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** On December 12, 2024, the lawyers and staff of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP celebrated the holiday season together with a family-style lunch at Gusto 501. From our firm to yours, best wishes for the holidays.

**Content:**

On December 12, 2024, the lawyers and staff of [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://www.linkedin.com/company/dcmlaw/) celebrated the holiday season together with a family style lunch at [Gusto 501](https://gusto501.com/).

On behalf of our firm, we wish all our friends and colleagues the best over the holidays.

**Categories:** Firm News

---

### [First Court of Appeal Decision Released in 2025 a Win for Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/first-court-of-appeal-decision-released-in-2025-a-win-for-davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/)

**Published:** January 5, 2025
**Author:** Peter Reinitzer

**Excerpt:** The Ontario Court of Appeal's first decision of 2025, Kramer v Ballantyne-Gaska, is a win for the firm's clients. The Court dismissed the vendors' appeal in full, upholding findings of breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation over undisclosed, non-compliant underground gas tanks, and rejecting their attempt to reduce the damages on a betterment theory.

**Content:**

I am proud to announce that the [Ontario Court of Appeal](https://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/)’s first decision of 2025 is a win for Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP’s clients.

The case of *[Kramer v Ballantyne-Gaska, 2025 ONCA 1](https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/22929/index.do)*, involved the plaintiffs’, Yvette Kramer and Garry Andrade, purchase of a resort-style hotel and gas bar from the defendants, Johnson and Roselee Collins. Prior to the purchase, the defendants had assured the plaintiffs that the underground gas tanks on the property – a key component to the property’s business selling gas to drivers of motor vehicles, ATVs, and snowmobiles– was in good condition and met all applicable regulatory compliance requirements. The defendants knew, but did not disclose, the fact that the tanks were, in fact, in breach of numerous regulatory standards and were subject to numerous compliance orders by the TSSA.

Within months of purchasing the property, the plaintiffs learned of the regulatory noncompliance and, despite years of trying to find a way to comply with the orders while keeping the tanks operable, they were forced to decommission the tanks and remove them from the ground. The plaintiffs retained Davidson Morrison Cahill and sued the defendants, John and Roselee Collins, in breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation for failure to deliver a regulatorily compliant tank system as promised. They also sued their lawyer who represented them in the purchase, Ms. Ballantyne-Gaska. The plaintiffs settled with Ms. Ballantyne-Gaska prior to trial and the trial proceeded solely as against the Collins defendants.

In the trial decision, *[Andrade v Collins, 2024 ONSC 6011](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc6011/2023onsc6011.html)*, the trial judge agreed that the defendants breached their contract when they failed to ensure that the property they conveyed to the plaintiffs had a regulatorily safe and compliant underground tank system. She also found that the defendants’ comments to the plaintiffs that the tank system was in a good condition despite their knowledge that this was not the case amounted to a fraudulent misrepresentation. She assessed damages as the cost to install a new underground storage tank system, which is what the defendants were contractually required to deliver. The defendants appealed.

In *[Kramer v Ballantyne-Gaska, 2025 ONCA 1](https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/22929/index.do)*, the Court of Appeal was asked to overturn the trial judge’s findings of breach of conduct and fraudulent misrepresentation, or alternatively to reduce the amount of damages on the basis that the damages awarded by the trial judge would provide the plaintiffs with brand new underground tanks when the contract promised them tanks that were decades old. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal in its entirety. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge applied the correct legal principles and made no error in applying those principles to the facts of the case in interpreting the purchase contract and in finding that the defendants breached that contract. The Court of Appeal did not need to address the fraudulent misrepresentation finding as the defendants did not pursue this avenue of appeal in their factum or at the appeal itself. As regards the damages, the Court of Appeal found that the defendant had failed to lead any evidence in support of its claim of betterment, and the trial judge consequently made no error in refusing to reduce the damages award on that basis.

The Appellants also argued at the appeal that the plaintiffs failed to immediately disclose the existence of their settlement with Ms. Ballantyne-Gaska, which was finalized by way of a *Pierringer* agreement, as would have been required. The Court of Appeal rejected this avenue of appeal on several grounds, including that while the defendants raised this issue at the outset of trial, they subsequently agreed to proceed to trial and to not seek an adjournment so as to move for a stay of proceedings in light of the alleged late disclosure. The Court of Appeal found that the defendants’ subsequent failure to ever seek any relief in light of the alleged late disclosure until it perfected its appeal disentitled it from the relief at the appeal itself. Furthermore, having never brought a motion to address the matter earlier, the Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiffs never had an opportunity to call evidence to show that the settlement agreement was, in fact, produced immediately after it was signed, and that the defendants’ counsel was notified of the impending settlement weeks prior in any event.

Both the trial decision and the appeal decision are well reasoned and provide thorough and helpful analyses of the law in the areas of fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and damages, and I commend them to anyone interested in these areas of law.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Appeal, Breach of Contract, Court of Appeal, Damages

---

### [King Charles III Confers Coronation Medal on Ron Strike](https://dcmlaw.ca/king-charles-iii-confers-coronation-medal-on-ron-strike/)

**Published:** February 1, 2025
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is proud to announce that Ron Strike has received the King Charles III Coronation Medal, conferred for significant contributions to Canada and its communities. For more than 30 years, Ron has represented accident and disability claimants across Durham Region while supporting the Bowmanville Hospital redevelopment, local health care, and Valleys 2000.

**Content:**

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is proud to announce [Ron Strike](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike/) as a recent recipient of the Coronation Medal which was conferred upon him by King Charles III.

The [Coronation Medal](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/medals/medals-chart-index/king-charles-iiis-coronation-medal.html) commemorates the Coronation of His Majesty King Charles III as King of Canada. The medal is administered by the [Chancellery of Honours at Rideau Hall](https://gg.ca/en/honours/canadian-honours/directory-honours/commemorative-medals/king-charles-iii-coronation-medal).

Recipients of this distinguished award must have made a significant contribution to Canada or to a particular province, territory, region or community of Canada.

For over 30 years, Ron has steadfastly represented victims of car accidents, slip and falls, and denied long-term disability benefits in the Clarington and Durham Region community.

He has been a significant donor to and participant in the redevelopment of the [Bowmanville Hospital](https://www.lakeridgehealth.on.ca/en/index.asp), a shareholder and board member of Bowmanville’s largest medical center and the president of Valleys 2000, a non profit organization that partners with Clarington to oversee the Bowmanville and Soper Creek Valleys and development of the Bowmanville Zoo Park.

On behalf of everyone at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP, we applaud Ron for his impressive community achievements and well deserved recognition.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Community Involvement

---

### [Concluding Commentary on Title Insurance Claims](https://dcmlaw.ca/concluding-commentary-on-title-insurance-claims/)

**Published:** February 10, 2025
**Author:** David Morin

**Excerpt:** In this concluding commentary on the firm's title insurance work, we summarize the series and offer practical advice to homeowners and homebuyers. The key lesson: residential title insurance policies cover far more than title alone, including many physical problems with a home that owners assume fall outside their coverage.

**Content:**

In this concluding commentary on our experience with title insurance claims I would like to summarize my previous commentaries and offer some concluding advice to homeowners and homebuyers.

It is important to keep in mind that just as “Health”, “Property”, and “Auto” insurance policies cover a variety of risks, and come in a variety of forms, so too does “Title” insurance. The title insurance policies sold to owners and Lenders on Commercial real estate transactions are “bare bones” policies. They typically cover only four to six different risks, the main one being the often misunderstood “Unmarketability of Title”. Residential policies, both the ones that protect Lenders, and the ones that protect Owners cover much more.

Residential policies – variously entitled a *“Home Ownership Protection Policy”*; or a “*Residential Owner’s Policy*”; or a “*Gold Comprehensive Protection Owner’s Policy*” typically cover over thirty “Covered Risks” many of which lawyers and judges would never consider “title” risks. Before listing these Covered Risks, these polices make it clear that they apply to your “Title” OR your “Land” (“Land” means essentially your house). In these commentaries I have focused on two of these coverages: (1) being forced to remove or remedy parts of your house that may have been built without the prior owner obtaining a Building Permit; and (2) any adverse circumstance affecting your house that would have been revealed had your lawyer searched the files at the Building Department before you closed.

In our representation of homeowners insured under these homeowner policies it is frustrating when the Insurers deny claims on the basis that the claim is not a “title” matter. Their polices cover much more than “title”. Secondly what is, or is not, a “title matter” is a very complex question. In the title insurance context, the Ontario Court of Appeal in *[Macdonald](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2015/2015onca842/2015onca842.html)* prompted significant confusion over whether “Work Orders” are title matters. There is also unsettled law on title matters in the requisition context (outside the title insurance context) as evidenced by commentary around Mr. Justice Perell’s decision on requisitions that are “matters of conveyance” in [*Chan* v. *Mangal*, 2022 ONSC 2068](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc2068/2022onsc2068.html).

Now here is my concluding advice:

1. Don’t assume that because you paid for something called “title insurance” it won’t be of use to you in non-title situations, particularly those having to do with physical issues (damage) you encounter at your house. If you are struggling with this issue, don’t hesitate to [contact](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP for advice or litigation support.
2. Don’t assume that the lawyer that acted for you when you purchased your home has a good sense of whether you can make a claim. Contact a law firm like ours that has experience bringing title insurance claims. Your lawyer likely acted as an “agent” of the title insurer in selling you your policy and may have actually signed an agreement with the title insurer that prohibits him or her from providing advice or acting for you in the event of a conflict with, or claim against, the title insurer.
3. If what has happened to you is covered by one of the more than 30 “Covered Risks” keep careful notes of all of your costs and expenses. The policies cover your “Actual Loss” making it important to itemize what your issue has cost, and is costing, you.
4. The next time you buy a house tell your lawyer, as soon as you retain him or her, that you want them to send a Search Inquiry Letter to the Building Dept. of the Municipality where the house is located. The Municipality will likely charge between $100 and $150 and your lawyer may want to increase his or her “flat fee”. Have the letter sent. Then review the reply your lawyer gets from the Municipality. Better to know well before Closing when you still have the opportunity to require the Vendor to “fix what needs fixing”. This is particularly true if you are buying new construction as building permits often need further inspection and then need to be finally inspected and closed. Even if the Vendor can’t fix everything you are better off knowing before Closing when you still have the opportunity to get out of the deal, or get an endorsement from the title insurer tailored to the situation you have discovered. Houses are too expensive to buy on the hope you’ll be covered later. Be proactive. You must take steps to protect your most valuable asset in the event that you discover loss or damage that may very well be covered by your title insurance policy. Once again, if you’re unsure about any of this, please do contact the lawyers at [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) for assistance. We would be more than happy to share our knowledge and expertise with you.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Building Permit, Residential, Title Insurance

---

### [Hudson Chalmers Judges Western Law’s Medical Malpractice Moot Trial](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers-judges-western-laws-medical-malpractice-moot-trial/)

**Published:** March 4, 2025
**Author:** Hudson Chalmers

**Excerpt:** On February 25, 2025, Hudson Chalmers volunteered as a judge at Western Law's Medical Malpractice Moot Trial, organized by Legate Injury Lawyers and the Western Health Law Association. The hypothetical turned on whether an emergency physician met the standard of care in a delayed stroke diagnosis. He reflects on advocacy, expert evidence, and this year's exceptionally strong students.

**Content:**

On February 25, 2025, it was my pleasure to volunteer as a judge in this year’s Western Law’s Medical Malpractice Moot Trial, organized by Legate Injury Lawyers and the Western Health Law Association.

The moot trial was based on a hypothetical case where an individual presented at the emergency department with symptoms of a stroke. In this hypothetical case, the emergency physician ordered a non-contrast CT scan which was unremarkable. The next day, the individual’s symptoms persisted, and a CT Angiogram was ordered, revealing the stroke. By then, it was too late to initiate treatment to prevent neurological injuries. The only issue in the moot trial was whether the emergency physician met the standard of care when he did not order the CT Angiogram until the next day.

The moot trial involved both the students for the Plaintiff and Defendant making opening submissions, calling an expert witness on the issue of standard of care including examinations in-chief and cross-examinations (expert witnesses were medical students at Western’s Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry), and closing submissions.

As a judge, I was able to combine my passions of education and trial advocacy. I had the unique opportunity to provide insight to the students on rules of evidence and how to effectively advocate their respective theories of the case. The students that participated in this year’s moot were exceptionally strong, and it was exciting to see how enthusiastic these students are in the field of medical malpractice litigation.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Delayed Diagnosis, Emergency Room, Expert Evidence, Moot Court, Standard of Care

---

### [David Morin Honoured as a Lexpert-Ranked Lawyer in the 2025 Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin-honoured-as-a-lexpert-ranked-lawyer-in-the-2025-canadian-legal-lexpert-directory/)

**Published:** March 11, 2025
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** David Morin, Managing Partner of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP, has been recognized as one of Canada's leading legal practitioners in the 2025 Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory. The ranking is the product of an extensive, peer-driven review process that identifies top lawyers across the country.

**Content:**

David Morin has been recognized as one of Canada’s Leading Legal Practitioners in the 2025 *Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory*. This prestigious accolade is the result of an extensive peer-review process that identifies top legal professionals across the country.

It is a great honour to be recognized as a top lawyer representing personal injury clients
– David Morin, Managing Partner of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

![David Morin](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/David-Morin-Portrait-scaled.webp)

David is the Managing Partner of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP. His practice focuses on personal injury, municipal liability, title insurance, and professional negligence claims. David divides his practice time between offices in Toronto, Huntsville, and Bowmanville, Ontario. Depending on the day of the week, you can catch him in one of these offices.

For over three decades, the *Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory* has conducted an annual survey to highlight outstanding lawyers and firms. Rankings are determined through recommendations from law firm leaders and industry peers, acknowledging those who demonstrate excellence, leadership, and influence in their respective fields.

This distinction reflects David’s dedication to delivering exceptional legal services and advancing the profession through expertise and commitment.

Learn more at:

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Awards & Recognition

---

### [Kamlu v 2502301 Ontario Inc: Why a Board-Less Corporation Cannot Litigate](https://dcmlaw.ca/board-less-corporation-cannot-sue/)

**Published:** June 23, 2026
**Author:** Peter Reinitzer

**Excerpt:** In Kamlu v 2502301 Ontario Inc, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed an action as a nullity after the defence discovered the plaintiff corporation had operated for years with no valid board of directors, its sole directing mind an undischarged bankrupt. Justice Chiappetta held that an officer's authority cannot outlive the board, and that a trustee's silence is not ratification. A cautionary tale on corporate governance and the capacity to litigate.

**Content:**

A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice serves as a stark reminder of the critical intersection between corporate governance and litigation capacity. In [*Kamlu Engineering Inc. v. 2502301 Ontario Inc. et al*, 2026 ONSC 3590](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/kamlu-engineering-inc.-v-2502301-ontario-inc-2026-ONSC-3590.pdf "Kamlu Engineering Inc. v. 2502301 Ontario Inc. et al, 2026 ONSC 3590"), the Court addressed a rare but instructive procedural reality: what happens to a lawsuit when the corporation’s sole directing mind is an undischarged bankrupt, and the company has operated without a validly appointed board of directors for years?

The answer from Justice Chiappetta is unequivocal: the action is a nullity and must be dismissed as an abuse of process.

**The Background: A Missing Board and a Hidden Bankruptcy**

The plaintiff, Kamlu Engineering Inc., commenced an action in April 2021 regarding an unpaid construction contract. For years, the litigation proceeded down a standard path toward a ten to twelve day trial. The plaintiff’s key witness swore throughout the litigation that he was Kamlu’s sole director, officer, and shareholder.

However, the defense uncovered a critical fact in the summer of 2025, one year prior to trial: Mr. Gabriele was an undischarged bankrupt, having made an assignment into bankruptcy in 2006. Under section 71 of the *Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act* (BIA), all of his property, including his shares in Kamlu Engineering, had long vested in his Trustee.

Furthermore, under section 105(1)(d) of the *Canada Business Corporations Act* (*CBCA*), an undischarged bankrupt is disqualified from serving as a corporate director. Because Kamlu’s only other director had resigned in 2017, the corporation had been operating entirely without a board of directors for four years by the time the lawsuit was filed.

**The Core Legal Issues**

The Defendant moved under Rule 21.01(3)(b) to dismiss the action on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked the legal capacity to commence or continue the proceeding. The plaintiff countered with several corporate law arguments, asserting:

- **Separate Corporate Identity:** The corporation is a distinct legal entity from its shareholder, meaning its capacity to sue remains intact even if the shareholder is bankrupt.
- **De Facto Officer Authority:** While Mr. Gabriele could not legally be a director, he remained an officer (President), a role not explicitly barred to bankrupt individuals under the *CBCA*, and therefore held delegated management authority.
- **Implicit Ratification:** The Trustee, as the true sole shareholder, had not actively stepped in to disallow or stop the lawsuit, which the plaintiff argued amounted to implicit ratification.

**The Court’s Analysis: The Limits of Delegated Authority**

Justice Chiappetta dismantled the plaintiff’s arguments by looking at the core architecture of corporate governance:

**1. Officers Cannot Act Without a Board**

While an undischarged bankrupt is not explicitly prohibited from being a corporate officer under the CBCA, officers derive their day-to-day authority entirely via delegation from an active board of directors. Because the corporation had lacked a single director for four years, whatever delegation Mr. Gabriele previously held had long since expired. The Court noted that an officer in a board-less corporation cannot operate independently indefinitely, stating that while a lawsuit falls within ordinary management duties, that authority cannot outlive the board by four years.

**2. Ratification Requires an Active Step**

The Court distinguished this case from historical precedents where courts overlooked corporate irregularities. Notably, the Trustee in Bankruptcy testified that he had been completely unaware of the litigation until 250’s lawyers notified him last year. Upon learning of it, the Trustee took no position and declined to step in to direct or maintain the claim. Justice Chiappetta held that the mere absence of any steps by the shareholder to disallow the action does not equal ratification; a corporation operating without a board requires an active, intentional step from its shareholder to validate prior unauthorized instructions given to counsel.

Ultimately, the Court struck down the action and the associated construction lien, demonstrating that while the law treats corporations as distinct legal persons, it will not permit a ghost ship to sue.

**3. Deliberate Deception Negates Curative Provisions**

The plaintiff attempted to rely on section 116 of the *CBCA*, which validates the acts of an officer or director despite defects in their appointment in certain circumstances. The Court flatly rejected this argument, noting that Mr. Gabriele’s conduct was not a matter of mere procedural inadvertence. He was legally barred from being a director, swore false affidavits asserting he was the sole directing mind, and intentionally hid the litigation from his Trustee. The Court held that the curative function of section 116 did not apply in these circumstances to validate Mr. Gabriele’s actions on behalf of the corporation.

**Commercial Takeaways**

- **No Board, No Standing**: An officer cannot operate a board-less corporation indefinitely on autopilot. Without a legal director to delegate authority, an officer’s power evaporates over time.
- **Trustee Inaction is Not Ratification**: If a shareholder’s or trustee’s authorization is required to cure a litigation irregularity, silence or passivity is not enough. The court expects an active, explicit step to ratify prior unauthorized corporate actions.

**Practical Takeaways for Litigators**

- **Verify Corporate Governance Status Early:** Never take a corporate counterparty’s capacity for granted. A comprehensive corporate and bankruptcy search should be standard checklist items in early-stage commercial litigation, particularly when dealing with closely held corporations or corporations in precarious financial situations.
- **The Pitfalls of Lax Governance:** For corporate clients, this decision highlights that regulatory compliance is not just administrative busywork. A prolonged failure to maintain a validly constituted board of directors can completely paralyze a company’s ability to enforce its contractual rights or defend its economic interests.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Abuse of Process, Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Corporate Governance, Ontario Superior Court, Rules of Civil Procedure

---

### [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP Sponsors the 2026 OTLA Cup](https://dcmlaw.ca/davidson-cahill-morrison-2026-otla-cup-sponsor/)

**Published:** March 5, 2026
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Excerpt:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP was proud to sponsor the 2026 OTLA Cup, held March 5 at the Hamilton Superior Court of Justice. Ontario law students argued a layered negligence trial arising from a residential gas explosion, before a three-judge panel. Congratulations to this year's award winners.

**Content:**

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP was proud to support the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) Cup, the association’s annual trial advocacy competition for Ontario law students. This year’s moot took place on March 5, 2026 at the Hamilton Superior Court of Justice, where students from law schools across the province argued a demanding tort case before a sitting of the bench.

The OTLA Cup is organized each year by volunteer OTLA lawyers to develop trial skills, civility, and professionalism among the next generation of advocates. Teams compete in a full simulated trial in a real courtroom: openings, examinations in chief, cross-examinations, and closings, all built on a single complex fact scenario. The competition rotates among courthouses around Ontario, and the problems are generally drawn from the law of personal liability and torts, the core of civil litigation practice.

This year’s competition was presided over by a special sitting of three members of the bench: the Honourable Justice Bale, the Honourable Justice Spurgeon, and the Honourable Justice Bordin. Arguing before a three-judge panel gave participants a realistic sense of the rigour and expectations of trial practice.

## A demanding fact scenario

The problem put to the students was a layered negligence action arising from a catastrophic gas explosion in a residential setting. A homeowner had retained a utility-locating service before undertaking backyard excavation. Despite those precautions, a gas line was struck when borrowed excavation equipment malfunctioned. Gas then leaked undetected into a neighbouring home and ignited when the neighbour went to light a barbecue.

The injured plaintiff brought claims against multiple defendants: the homeowner, the friend operating the machinery, the utility-locating service, the equipment provider, and the gas company responsible for emergency response. The scenario asked competitors to grapple with the kinds of issues that define multi-party civil litigation:

- the standard of care in residential excavation;
- reliance on utility-locating services;
- negligent equipment maintenance and lending practices;
- emergency response obligations; and
- causation in a multi-defendant, multi-factor accident.

It is a fact pattern that mirrors the work our litigators do every day: dense facts, several potentially responsible parties, and a causation analysis that has to account for more than one contributing failure.

## Congratulations to this year’s advocates

The calibre of advocacy was high throughout. Students distilled a complicated record into clear, persuasive narratives, framed their examinations with purpose, and held their footing under judicial questioning. We congratulate every competitor, and in particular this year’s award winners:

- **Will Trial Lawyers Award for Best Opening:** Fiona Mucko (University of Windsor)
- **Greg Monforton Award for Best Examination-in-Chief:** Caitlyn Brennan (Queen’s University)
- **Bonn Law Award for Best Cross-Examination:** Owen Zimmer (Lakehead University)
- **H. Bruce Hillyer Award for Best Closing:** David Grout (Osgoode Hall) and Julia Shanta (University of Ottawa)
- **Tim Boland Award for Best Overall Advocate:** Owen Zimmer (Lakehead University)
- **Hooper Law Award for Best Witness:** Paul Nitafan (Queen’s University)

The Bergeron Clifford Award for Best Team went to the Bora Laskin team from Lakehead University: Caitlyn Aune, Minahil Choudhary, and Owen Zimmer, coached by Jeff Moorley of White Macgillivray Lester LLP.

## Why we support the OTLA Cup

Trial advocacy is learned by doing, in front of real judges and on real records. Sponsoring the OTLA Cup is one of the ways Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP invests in the future of the plaintiff bar and in the advocacy training that serves clients and the justice system alike. We were glad to stand alongside the other firms who made this year’s competition possible.

The OTLA Cup heads to Thunder Bay for the 2027 competition, and we look forward to supporting it again.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is a civil litigation and appellate advocacy firm with offices in Toronto, Huntsville, and Bowmanville.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Causation, Civil Litigation, Community Involvement, Moot Court, OTLA, Standard of Care

---

### [Unpermitted Renovations and Dual Agency: Key Takeaways from Slatkovsky v Machado](https://dcmlaw.ca/slatkovsky-v-machado-unpermitted-renovation/)

**Published:** June 19, 2026
**Author:** Peter Reinitzer

**Excerpt:** A Puslinch century farmhouse looked beautifully renovated. The structural work had no building permit, and no one disclosed it. In Slatkovsky v Machado, the Ontario Superior Court held both the vendors and their double-ending agent liable, awarding the buyers $150,318 and confirming that the owner's permit duty cannot be passed off to a contractor.

**Content:**

Buying a home is the biggest financial investment most Canadians will ever make. When we see a beautifully updated property, we naturally expect that the work was done safely and to modern standards. However, a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, *[Slatkovsky v Machado et al](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/slatkovsky-v-machado-final-judgment-june-15-2026-1.pdf)*, serves as a cautionary tale for homeowners, sellers, and real estate agents alike. The two-week trial in Kitchener centered on a beautifully renovated century farm home in Puslinch, Ontario, that turned out to have serious unpermitted structural defects and undisclosed utility issues. The court ultimately ordered the defendants to pay a total of $150,318 to the buyers, establishing important legal precedents regarding property disclosures and the responsibilities of real estate agents.

**The Story Behind the Dispute**

In 2013, the plaintiffs, Karen Slatkovsky and Adrian Levytsky, fell in love with a century home listed for $799,000. The marketing materials highly praised its extensive, “to the walls” renovations, promising the buyers true “peace-of-mind”. Reassured by a pre-listing home inspection arranged by the listing agent, Gerry Lall, the plaintiffs agreed to buy the home for $800,000. Because they did not have their own realtor, they agreed to a multiple representation arrangement, allowing Mr. Lall to act as a dual agent representing both sides of the deal.

Unfortunately, the promised peace of mind quickly vanished after closing:

**No Building Permits**: The buyers discovered that the massive structural renovations done a decade prior were completed entirely without the required building permit, meaning the municipality had never inspected or approved the work.

**Dangerous Structural Flaws**: An invasive inspection by an engineer revealed serious structural violations of the Ontario *Building Code* related to those renovations. Notably, a vertical, load-bearing post was not plumb and at risk of failure.

**Hidden Well Deficiencies**: During their first winter in the house, the well froze, cutting off their water. They later found a servicing record hidden in a folder left at the house. While the sellers had provided a report showing the water was clean and flowed well, they withheld a second report from the exact same day warning that the 20-year-old pressure system was failing and needed to be replaced.

Faced with an unsafe home and a sudden, serious medical diagnosis, the buyers chose to minimize their stress. They moved out, put the house back on the market with full disclosure of the defects, and sold it at a loss for $730,000, representing a $70,000 drop from what they paid. They then took the sellers and the agent to court to recover their financial losses.

**The Court’s Verdict: Sellers Cannot Simply Blame the Contractor**

The sellers, Yuri and Kara Machado, defended themselves by arguing that they shouldn’t be held responsible because they had hired a professional contractor and assumed he had taken care of the necessary municipal permits. The court soundly rejected this defense. Justice Spurgeon clarified that under Ontario’s *Building Code Act*, the ultimate responsibility to ensure building permits are secured lies with the property owner. Homeowners cannot simply pass the buck to a contractor. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the Machados took any steps to verify that the contractor obtained permits where required or ensured that the requisite inspections had been conducted. The judge concluded that if a building permit had been properly obtained, a qualified municipal inspector would have caught and fixed the structural flaws before the home was sold. Additionally, the court found the sellers liable for negligent misrepresentation regarding the well. The judge ruled that selectively sharing the positive water test while hiding the negative report about the failing pressure system was an unfair omission that misled the buyers.

**Holding the Real Estate Agent Accountable**

A major focal point of the trial was the role of the real estate agent, Gerry Lall. Mr. Lall argued that he did his job by suggesting the buyers have a real estate lawyer look over the initial offer. He claimed that once the buyers and their lawyer decided to remove a standard municipal inspection condition from the final contract, he was no longer responsible for verifying the permit history. The court disagreed completely, calling out the unique dangers of dual agency. Under the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) Code of Ethics, realtors must take reasonable steps to discover and share “material facts” about a property. The judge called Mr. Lall’s admission that he didn’t even know that the structural renovations required a building permit “shocking” for a professional.

Crucially, the court ruled that telling a buyer to go to a lawyer does not let an agent off the hook. Because standard real estate lawyers rely heavily on title insurance rather than digging through City Hall files, and because title insurance often won’t cover unpermitted work unless the town has already issued an official violation notice, the agent’s failure to check on the permits left the buyers completely unprotected. The court found Mr. Lall liable for both professional negligence and a breach of his fiduciary duties.

**Legal Takeaways: The Cost of Overlooking Accountability**

The decision in *Slatkovsky v Machado* serves as a stark reminder of how property disputes can pivot on the strict enforcement of statutory and professional duties.

For property owners, the ruling makes it clear that municipal permit compliance is a non-delegable statutory obligation under Ontario law. Simply relying on a third-party contractor does not shield a vendor from long-term liability if unpermitted structural work leaves a home dangerous or deficient. Furthermore, the court reinforced that half-truths in property disclosures, such as revealing positive inspection results while omitting concurrent negative maintenance reports, will be treated as actionable misrepresentation. For the real estate industry, the judgment highlights the significant professional risks inherent in dual agency and places a heavy emphasis on an agent’s fundamental duty to discover and disclose material facts. When an agent chooses to represent both sides of a transaction, they remain fully bound by a fiduciary duty to proactively investigate the property’s history rather than acting as a passive conduit for information. The court firmly rejected the defense that a realtor can offload their obligation to uncover material facts, such as the permit history of a major structural overhaul, onto a real estate lawyer or an assumed title insurance policy. When an agent heavily markets a property’s renovations, they bear an independent professional responsibility to verify those claims, including whether the renovations were properly permitted and inspected.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Building Permit, Causation, Construction Negligence, Damages, Latent Defects, Negligent Misrepresentation, Ontario Superior Court, Real Estate Negligence, Trial Decision

---

### [Welcome Changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure](https://dcmlaw.ca/welcome-changes-to-the-rules-of-civil-procedure/)

**Published:** April 11, 2025
**Author:** Hudson Chalmers

**Excerpt:** "Justice delayed is justice denied." Few principles are repeated more often, yet civil cases in Ontario routinely take more than five years to reach trial. The Civil Rules Review, launched by the Attorney General and the Chief Justice, released its Phase 2 Consultation Paper in April 2025 with proposals to make civil proceedings faster, more affordable, and more accessible. A look at what the changes could mean for plaintiffs and defendants alike.

**Content:**

“*Justice Delayed is Justice Denied*”. This is a truism that has been reiterated many times over the years by the Ontario Court of Appeal. While it takes time to properly work up a complex case and get it ready for trial, there is no reason why it should take more than five years from the start of the litigation to the date of trial.

The main concern that we hear from both plaintiff and defendant clients is why litigation takes so long to go from initial consultation to a trial date. Some of the delay can be attributable to the high volume of cases and sorting through the backlog of cases still present due to restrictions on hearings following the COVID-19 Pandemic, however, the slow nature of civil litigation is fundamentally caused by the *Rules of Civil Procedure* governing civil litigation in Ontario.

Since January 25, 2024, Attorney General Downey and Chief Justice Morawetz launched the *Civil Rules Review*, mandated to identify issues and develop proposals for reforming the *Rules of Civil Procedure* to make civil proceedings more efficient, affordable, and accessible.

In April, 2025, the *Civil Rules Review* released their “[Phase 2 Consultation Paper](https://d5llhk04.na1.hubspotlinksstarter.com/Ctc/DQ+113/d5llhk04/VWbNVp89l7LqW7wYCHf6w5w1dW3hB9jJ5tYKfdN1f4_YT3m2ndW95jsWP6lZ3mNVnWTpg3Pmy_xVly8HS3qrtXHW3qPLf_67f4XnW1-M87Z3ffNCfW2F0_087GbF9zW9dPXYf6rlDQLW6QW2Qy6DT4x5W3l3smb2ClJvwN1RvQr3BDXJrW1sr9PP14zLyfW1c56vm96HzSXW5BPDmv20-qXsW35jy2z7JlS4GW74bb377fgg9BVfsNG61wLXwsW5z8KZL5pX41xW22qyMw83tPCnW65M0tY19VSbnVmM9pZ7XndcbW7pv9rq5hQ3V_W92Tnzt14rXpXW4lLJ2p6kyWCRW3Nsfg-8c0RxXW6XdNPj5T2ZnHW8n_hqv4V9JwKW33XZC25PpdhpV9f48Q2PdrSSW8-r31Z81PfBZW6p7mGz7Q8K_GW7ck7Yy5-cx2Kf5bR5Xq04)”, which has provided potential changes to the civil litigation system. The new system should be welcomed by both plaintiffs and defendants alike. The proposed changes can be viewed as shifting focus from litigating over procedure to how to solve the substantive issue in dispute between litigants.

At the heart of the proposed reforms is to have a more pragmatic approach to interlocutory processes, in particular changes to the discovery process, the exchange of evidence, and motions practice. The ultimate goal is for parties to have a dispositive hearing date within two years of the Claim’s issuance, which is currently unheard of.

## Discovery and Evidence

The current system requires parties to negotiate a discovery plan, compile and exchange affidavits of documents, find mutually convenient dates for examinations, prepare for and attend examinations, obtain transcripts, and bring any motions arising from undertakings or refusals given at the examination. No wonder it may take up to two years for parties to complete the discovery process, especially in complex claims involving multiple parties.

Under the new proposed system, oral examinations for discovery will be eliminated, which will ensure that parties are in a position to set a trial date earlier in the process, eliminate time preparing for examinations, and eliminate the need for any discovery-related motions, which should have the effect of cost efficiency and reductions in delay.

Under the new proposed system, the parties will be required to disclose documents available to the parties at the time pleadings are served. This up-front evidence model includes the exchange of sworn or affirmed witness statements, affidavits of documents, and timetables for the exchange of expert reports, with an ongoing obligation to update the expert timetable as circumstances change.

After the initial disclosure, there will be a supplementary disclosure under the *Redfern* model, where parties can request “focused, narrow and specific” additional documents, and permit for “a limited number of written interrogatories”. With the up-front evidence model, the key objectives the current discovery process (i.e. information gathering, narrowing issues in dispute, avoiding trial by ambush, and facilitating settlement) will still be met, while balancing the need to reduce costs and delays.

Part of the new discovery process will deal with the exchange of expert evidence. Under the new proposed system, expert evidence will be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings, and will be restricted to one expert per issue per party, unless leave of the Court is granted. Under the new proposed system, joint litigation experts are encouraged and will be presumptively required for a number of issues, for example economic loss calculations and standard of care.

Under the new proposed system, expert reports will be required at least 90 days prior to a court ordered mediation, responding reports at least 60 days before a court ordered mediation, and any supplementary reports at least 45 days in advance of trial. Trials will not be adjourned to accommodate late delivery of experts’ reports, and will result in their inadmissibility unless the defaulting party gets leave from the court.

## Motions

The *Civil Rules Review* is critical of “motions culture”, which is fostered by the current *Rules*. Motions are costly and favour litigants with deep pockets to leverage their opponents. It can also lead to substantive delays, sometimes delaying an action by over a year, which again can be used to the strategic advantage of a defendant.

Under the new proposed system, request for relief that would otherwise be sought by way of motion will be subject to a Directions Conference. For relief that is procedural in nature, it will be presumptively decided at a Directions Conference. At the Directions Conference, the Directions Conference Justice will have the power to attempt to settle the interlocutory issue; decide the interlocutory issue, including costs; order the parties attend a further directions conference with the exchange of additional materials; or schedule a formal motion and impose a timetable for the same.

## Other Significant Changes

In addition to major reform to the current interlocutory process, the *Civil Rules Review* has suggested a number of other changes, including:

- **Duty to Co-Operate**: While this is not to undermine a lawyer’s duty to advocate for their clients, this duty is focused on discussions to agree on how a proceeding will be conducted, and involved a duty to co-operate with respect to disclosure, joint book of documents, chronologies, and experts.
- **Pre-Litigation Protocols (PLP)**: PLP mandates the early exchange of information and specific relevant documents to allow for a genuine effort to resolve their disputes before starting Court Proceedings. Notably, PCPs will not alter any applicable limitation periods.
- **Commencing a Claim**: There will be a new single point of entry into the Civil Justice System, aimed at simplifying the process of initiating a claim, reduce the need for motions, and ensure essential information is included in every claim, which will assist during future case conferences.
- **Service of Claim**: Defendants are required to confirm acceptance of service whenever a claim comes to their attention. Service of an originating process will also be permissible via email with a delivery receipt in conjunction with service via ordinary mail to the defendant’s last known address.
- **Amending a Claim**: Claims can be amended as a right until the date that the plaintiff delivers its witness statements, except for amendments that includes the addition, deletion or substitution of a party. Amendments will still be permitted on consent or with leave of the court.
- **Default Proceedings**: The claimant shall serve a notice of default on the defaulted defendant, following which the defaulted defendant has 14 days to set the default aside. Giving the defaulted defendant two chances to respond to a claim, the threshold for setting aside a default judgment will be more onerous.
- **Discontinuing an Action**: The claimant is entitled to discontinue all or part of an action at any time, including after the close of the pleadings, subject to the defendant’s ability to seek costs.
- **Trial Management Conference**: To occur 2-3 weeks before the scheduled commencement of trial, presided over by the trial judge, to discuss the presenting evidence including issues over admissibility; length of trial; motions; and the filing of an agreed chronology, joint document brief, and agreed glossary of definitions.
- **Addressing Delay**: The civil litigation system will transition from a party-driven system to a court managed one to prevent delays, and will institute delay penalties by way of costs consequences for any missed court mandated interim deadlines.

## Potential Concerns with the Proposed New Rules

While the proposed changes should be welcomed, there may be some potential drawbacks to litigants with the elimination of examinations for discovery altogether. Without examinations for discovery, it may be difficult to obtain helpful (or harmful) admissions prior to a trial, which may otherwise inform important risk assessment resulting in a compromised settlement. Without being able to obtain oral evidence at an examination for discovery, it may also make it more difficult to find the appropriate experts to prosecute or defend a given case.

Perhaps some of the proposed changes, such as implementing the Directions Conferences, the use of effective Trial Management Conferences, and a Court-managed process to address delay, can be implemented in a way to address the delay caused by the current discovery process, while allowing for limited oral examinations for discovery with strict court-imposed deadlines in select cases. For example, requests for oral examinations for discovery could be made to the Directions Conference Justice and be implemented at their direction when the complexity of the case demands it. In doing so, the Directions Conference Justice could impose strict timelines, time limits on questions, and narrow the scope of questions in their direction, which would still be aimed at reducing the costs and delay associated with examinations for discovery.

The proposed changes to the Civil Justice System marks significant reform and addresses the Court’s main criticism of delay and cost associated with procedure over substance. It will be interesting to see what changes are ultimately made when the reform comes into effect, and how the new Rules will be used in practice in the years to come. Once implemented the new revisions will take some getting used to, but will hopefully have the intended effect of ensuring access to timely and cost-effective justice.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Civil Litigation, Rules of Civil Procedure

---

### [Is Your Lawyer Acting as an Unlicensed Insurance Agent?](https://dcmlaw.ca/is-your-lawyer-acting-as-an-unlicensed-insurance-agent/)

**Published:** April 21, 2025
**Author:** David Morin

**Excerpt:** When a real estate lawyer orders a title insurance policy for a client, are they quietly stepping into the role of an insurance agent? Read against the Insurance Act's definition of "agent" and the fact that lawyers are not members of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario, the question is sharper than it looks, and it is one reason a homeowner should not rely on the lawyer who sold the policy to tell them whether they have a claim under it.

**Content:**

My previous posts have been written for homeowners and discussed considerations related to whether or not they have a claim under their title insurance policy. In those posts I urge homeowners to consult lawyers, like those at [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/), that have had title insurance claims experience. This post raises questions for lawyers that order title insurance for their clients. It also explains why homeowners should not be asking their real estate lawyer whether they have a valid claim under their title insurance policy.

As I referenced in my October 1, 2024 post on [Title Insurance Exclusions](https://dcmlaw.ca/title-insurance-exclusions-suffered-created-or-assumed-and-known-to-the-insured-but-not-the-insurer/), lawyers don’t see themselves as insurance agents, but one wonders:

In Ontario the [*Insurance Act* ](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i08)defines an “agent”:

*“agent” means a person who, for compensation, commission or any other thing of value,*

*(a)…., or*

*(b) solicits insurance on behalf of an insurer or transmits, for a person other than himself, herself or itself, an application for, or a policy of insurance to or from such insurer, or offers or assumes to act in the negotiation of such insurance or in negotiating its continuance or renewal with such insurer,*

*and who is not a member of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario;*

Lawyers are not members of the [Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario](https://www.ribo.com/) so the exception in the last sentence does not apply. Now let’s look at the other elements (separated by the word “or” meaning only one needs to fit) that make someone an insurance “agent”.

*“Solicits insurance on behalf of an insurer…”* Homebuyers, even very experienced ones, don’t typically enter their lawyer’s office with a firm view about the utility of title insurance and the particular insurer they would like to buy from. Their lawyer tells them about title insurance; which company or companies the lawyer deals with; what the policy covers; how much it costs; what their mortgage lender will require; and how much money the lawyer may save in disbursements by omitting some searches. Lawyers *solicit* title insurance on behalf of title insurers – and they sell you on the purchase of the policy.

*“Or transmits, for a person other than himself, herself or itself, an application for, or a policy of insurance to or from such insurer…”* Homebuyers do not apply for title insurance. Their lawyer conducts (or orders from a freelance title searcher) the title search and sends the results to the insurer typically on the insurer’s ordering platform built into the document processing software used by the law firm. The lawyer makes that application for another person (the Homebuyer(s)/Insured(s)/client(s)). Homebuyers are not typically sent their policy by the title insurer. Lawyers transmit applications to the insurer and then when the insurer has transmitted the policy to the lawyer, the lawyer transmits it to the insured, typically after Closing.

“*Or offers or assumes to act in the negotiation of such insurance…”* The policy (sometimes preceded by a Commitment to Insure) is sent by the insurer to the lawyer for review. If any changes, endorsements, or schedules need to be negotiated that negotiation takes place between the lawyer and the insurer. The Homebuyer/prospective insured is not typically involved in these negotiations other than to confirm instructions. Issues of continuance and renewal are not relevant to title insurance as it continues for as long as the insured has an interest.

But what about the opening line of the definition? That to meet the definition of “agent” a lawyer has to do at least one of these things for: *“compensation, commission or any other thing of value”.*

Lawyers, the Bar Associations that represent lawyers’ interests, and the Law Society charged with regulating lawyers in the public interest might argue that when they order title insurance for their clients lawyers are not doing so for *“compensation, commission or any other thing of value”*. But they’d be wrong.

- The Real Estate Transaction Levy Surcharge. Real estate lawyers in Ontario are required by the Law Society to send a $65.00 Transaction Levy Surcharge to the Law Society every time they open a file. The Law Society then sends that money to LawPRO, an Errors & Omissions insurer owned by the Law Society. Lawyers do not need to pay that Transaction Levy Surcharge if every party to the Real Estate transaction (typically the Buyer and the Lender) is buying title insurance – a *“thing of value”*.
- To be exempt from the levy the lawyer must choose a title insurer that has entered into the Law Society’s form of “Release and Indemnity” agreement pursuant to which the title insurer must agree not to sue the lawyer, the Law Society or its E&O insurer, and further will pay the lawyer’s legal fees if the lawyer is sued. Another *“thing of value”*.
- Title insurers tell lawyers they can skip some of the searches they would have been required to conduct were they opining on the transaction. This includes the typically $100-$150 search of the records at the Building Department – a troubling practice discussed in my earlier Commentaries. Lowering what the lawyer must charge in disbursements allows the lawyer to quote a lower price and attract more clients. Another *“thing of value”*.
- There are various issues around how lawyers are compensated by the title insurers in return for orders through something called an “Examining Counsel Fee”. No matter how one views those issues there is no doubt that lawyers are *“compensated”* by the insurers for ordering policies.
- We’ve seen those agreements specify that the lawyer can pay the premium using his/her credit card to personally earn the Credit Card points. Another *“thing of value”*. And by the way those agreements can prohibit your lawyer from representing you in the event you have a claim. Another reason to start the process with a firm like Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP.

It is hard therefore to conclude that lawyers acting on residential real estate transactions are not insurance agents under Ontario’s *Insurance Act*. This has some serious implications given other requirements of the Act, including the fact lawyers are not licensed as agents which is an offence (s.392.2 (6)). While the [Registered Insurance Brokers Act](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90r19) contains an exception to the requirement that all Insurance Brokers be registered for *“lawyers, accountants or actuaries acting in their professional capacity* there is no such exception for lawyers in the *Insurance Act*.

As discussed in my October 1, 2024 post on the “Knowledge Exclusion”, it would seem to be very clear that anything known to the Lawyer/Agent is imputable to the Insurer. Insurance contracts are contracts of utmost good faith. You can’t get insurance for a boat that won’t float without telling the insurer all about it. The interesting thing with title insurance is that it is possible, even likely, that the Lawyer/Agent will come to know more about matters relevant to the policy than the Homebuyer. It is the Lawyer/Agent that searches, then reviews, the *Title*. It is the Lawyer/Agent that conducts, then reviews, any off-title searches related to the *Land* (as those terms are defined in the policies). Possibly most problematic, it is the Lawyer/Agent that conducts other due diligence, possibly additional due diligence, on behalf of the Homebuyer’s mortgage lender. This is particularly true with Private Lenders as they can require additional due diligence together with a policy.

It is possible, even likely, that Lawyer/Agents may be in the awkward position of knowing more (or being deemed to know more) about matters related both to the Title, and to the Land than the Homebuyer/Insured. One assumes that Lawyer would be found to have a duty to disclose that knowledge to his/her client, the Insured – and to his/her Principal, the Insurer.

Lucky for the lawyer the title insurer will have released and indemnified them.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Exclusions, Real Estate Negligence, Title Insurance

---

### [Hudson Chalmers Presenting at the 2025 OTLA Spring Conference](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers-presenting-at-the-2025-otla-spring-conference/)

**Published:** May 6, 2025
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** At the 2025 OTLA Spring Conference, held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Hudson Chalmers presents in the Practical Litigation Tips track on a back-to-basics theme: how to effectively prepare for and argue a contested motion. His practice spans personal injury and insurance litigation, with a particular interest in medical malpractice.

**Content:**

On May 9, 2025, [Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/) will be presenting in the Practical Litigation Tips track of the [2025 Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) Spring Conference](https://www.otla.com/?pg=events&evAction=showDetail&eid=297135) held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre in Toronto, Ontario.

Hudson will be offering advice on the subject of: “Back-to-Basics: How to Effectively Prepare for and Argue a Contested Motion.”

Hudson’s practice includes personal injury and insurance litigation, with a special interest in [medical malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/medical-malpractice-lawyers/). He takes pride in understanding both sides of legal disputes and applying that knowledge to the best advantage of his clients.

Hudson earned his Bachelor of Arts in History from Queen’s University (2016) and his Juris Doctor from the University of Windsor, Faculty of Law (2019), before being called to the Bar in 2020.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** OTLA, Speaking Engagement

---

### [Peter Reinitzer Appointed President of the Muskoka Law Association](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer-appointed-president-of-the-muskoka-law-association/)

**Published:** May 13, 2025
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Partner Peter Reinitzer has been appointed President of the Muskoka Law Association, which supports continuing education and professional collaboration across the region. Working primarily from the firm's Huntsville office, Peter has built a commercial and insurance practice focused on personal injury and property loss, and is a frequent speaker on advocacy, municipal liability, and title insurance coverage.

**Content:**

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is proud to announce that its partner, [Peter Reinitzer](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer/), has been appointed President of the [Muskoka Law Association](https://muskokalaw.org/).

In this role, Peter will lead the Association in its ongoing efforts to support and advocate for legal professionals across the Muskoka region. The Muskoka Law Association serves as a hub for legal resources, continuing education, and professional collaboration among its members. As President, Peter will focus on strengthening the legal community in Muskoka through enhanced member engagement, advocacy, and access to legal resources.

Peter Reinitzer joined Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP in 2017 after a brief tenure as in-house counsel for a property developer. Operating primarily from the firm’s Huntsville office, he has developed a broad commercial and insurance-based practice, specializing in personal injury and property loss. Peter has successfully represented clients in numerous trials and appeals at the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal. He is also a frequent contributor to legal education, regularly speaking at conferences and sharing insights on topics such as advocacy, municipal liability, and title insurance coverage.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Community Involvement

---

### [Court of Appeal Upholds Nearly $1 Million in Costs Following Jury Trial in Pye v Di Trapani](https://dcmlaw.ca/court-of-appeal-upholds-nearly-1-million-in-costs-following-jury-trial-in-pye-v-di-trapani/)

**Published:** May 13, 2025
**Author:** Margaret Klassen

**Excerpt:** An 18-day jury trial, a damages award just over $1 million, and a costs award of nearly the same amount: the defendants said the trial judge had failed to test the plaintiff's costs for reasonableness and proportionality. In Pye v Di Trapani, 2025 ONCA 355, the Court of Appeal disagreed, reaffirming the broad discretion trial judges hold over costs and the powerful role a Rule 49 offer plays in the result.

**Content:**

In [*Pye v Di Trapani*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca355/2025onca355.html), the Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmed the broad discretion afforded to trial judges in awarding costs. The Court upheld a nearly $1 million costs award following an 18-day jury trial in which the plaintiff was awarded just over $1 million in damages. The trial judge’s reasons highlighted the exceptional quality of the plaintiff’s trial counsel, whose advocacy was described as a “rare jewel… that is a wonderful treat to behold.”

Partner [Chris Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/) and myself were counsel on this appeal for the successful party.

## Background

The case arose from damages sustained by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident in 2016. After a lengthy jury trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff over $1 million in damages – approximately double the defendant’s final offer to settle before trial. At the subsequent costs hearing, the trial judge awarded the plaintiff $995,854.50 in costs (inclusive of disbursements and HST) and $84,944 in pre-judgment interest calculated at a 3% annual rate.

The defendants appealed on the following grounds:

1. The trial judge erred in accepting the plaintiff’s costs and disbursements without adequately questioning them;
2. The trial judge failed to apply the principles of reasonableness and proportionality in determining costs; and
3. The trial judge erred in setting the pre-judgment interest rate at 3% rather than the presumptive rate of 0.8%.

## Relevant Legal Frameworks

***Costs (Rule 57.01)***

Under Rule 57.01 of the *Rules of Civil Procedure*, courts must determine a costs award that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, guided by a non-exhaustive list of factors including the result of the proceeding, complexity of the case, counsel’s experience and rates, conduct of the parties, and offers to settle. As the Court of Appeal reiterated, quoting *Davies v. Clarington (Municipality)*, the analysis is not a mechanical one: “the judge awarding costs should reflect on what the court views as a reasonable amount… rather than any exact measure of the actual costs.”

***Rule 49 Offers to Settle***

Rule 49 encourages early resolution by imposing cost consequences on parties who fail to accept reasonable offers. Where a plaintiff obtains a judgment more favourable than their offer, they are entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

***Pre-Judgment Interest***

Pre-judgment interest is governed by section 130 of the *Courts of Justice Act*, which allows a trial judge to depart from the default interest rate where circumstances justify it.

**The Trial Judge’s Reasons**

*Costs*

A central theme of the trial judge’s reasons was the exceptional calibre and efficiency of the plaintiff’s trial counsel. While the defence focused on the hourly rates charged, the trial judge found that the team worked “efficiently as a highly skilled team,” and that their performance at trial justified the rates claimed. He noted that the plaintiff’s counsel conducted the trial without delay or downtime, with each team member playing a vital role.

Notably, the judge emphasized that in assessing hourly rates, effectiveness was more relevant than years of experience. The result achieved and the manner in which the case was conducted led the court to conclude that the amount of costs sought were reasonable in the circumstances.

The plaintiff’s lead counsel, Michael Smituich, received remarkable praise from the bench. The judge described him as a “true artist in the field of advocacy”, noting that his conduct at trial “qualifies as one of those very rare jewels of advocacy that is a wonderful treat to behold”. His presentation was described as “brilliant, and especially so, as Mr. Pye presented as a miserable old man”. Based on Mr. Smitiuch’s excellent advocacy, the trial judge held that in a serious case such as this, most litigants would gladly pay $925 an hour for such “outstanding superior representation”.

In contrast, the $350 hourly rate of defendant’s counsel was described as woefully inadequate in the circumstances.

Of the total costs award, over $165,000 related to disbursements, which were largely unchallenged by the defendants.

*Rule 49*

The jury award exceeded the plaintiff’s pre-trial offer to settle, triggering entitlement to substantial indemnity costs from the date of that offer. This consequently accounted for more than half o the total costs award, totalling $516,060.00.

*Pre-Judgment Interest*

The trial judge exercised his to award pre-judgment interest 3% rather than the statutory rate of 0.8% prescribed by the *CJA*. He considered the inflationary environment and fluctuating market rates over the seven-year period from the accident to trial and concluded that the rate of 3% is fair and reasonable.

## The Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in full, finding no error in principle and no reason to interfere with the trial judge’s exercise of discretion.

*Failure to Question the Plaintiff’s Costs*

On the first issue, the Court affirmed that a trial judge is not required to conduct a line-by-line review of costs. The focus is on the overall reasonableness of the amount in light of the case’s complexity, the outcome, and conduct of counsel, among other factors. The Court held that the costs reasons demonstrate that the trial judge appropriately focused on the overall reasonableness and adequately explained why he considered the amount sought to be reasonable.

*Failure to Apply Principles of Reasonableness and Proportionality*

On the proportionality of the costs award, the Court noted that the trial judge properly accounted for the fact that the jury’s damages award exceeded the plaintiff’s rule 49 offer. This triggered substantial indemnity costs and justified a significant award. The trial judge was aware of proportionality concerns and adequately addressed them.

*Pre-Judgment Interest*

On pre-judgment interest, the Court reiterated that the trial judge’s discretion under section 130 of the *Courts of Justice Act* is broad and entitled to deference. It was open to the judge to consider inflation and market conditions, in setting a higher rate of 3% – there was no error in his exercise of discretion.

## Conclusion

Ultimately, the trial judge was entitled to consider the quality of plaintiff counsel’s advocacy pursuant to Rule 57.01, including the use of colourful commentary to convey Mr. Smitiuch’s exceptional advocacy.

This case reinforces the following key principles:

1. Appellate deference to costs awards is significant. Rule 57.01 requires a contextual assessment best made by the trial judge.
2. Exceptional advocacy and trial efficiency can justify higher billable rates.
3. Counsel’s effectiveness may outweigh seniority when assessing costs.
4. Rule 49 offers are a powerful tool that can dramatically affect a costs award.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Costs, Court of Appeal, Damages, Juries, Motor Vehicle Accident, Offer to Settle

---

### [No Damages Beyond “Buyer Beware”: Residential Renovations, the Building Code, and Construction Negligence](https://dcmlaw.ca/no-damages-beyond-buyer-beware-residential-renovations-the-building-code-and-construction-negligence/)

**Published:** January 20, 2026
**Author:** Peter Reinitzer

**Excerpt:** When a homeowner takes on a major renovation, they can step into the legal shoes of a builder, and the duties that come with it cannot be signed away in a standard form contract. In Oliva v Dickson, 2025 ONSC 6666, the court mapped the intersection of contract, the Ontario Building Code, and the duty owed to later purchasers. The decision draws on Breen v Lake of Bays and Wesley v Geneau, two matters in which Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP acted for the successful parties.

**Content:**

In the landscape of Ontario real estate litigation, the principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware) has long served as a formidable defense for vendors. However, as the recent decision in [*Oliva v Dickson*, 2025 ONSC 6666](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc6666/2025onsc6666.html) makes clear, this shield is not impenetrable. When a homeowner steps into the shoes of a builder or substantial renovator, they take on legal obligations that cannot be easily signed away in a standard form contract.

*Oliva v Dickson* is a significant addition to the body of case law concerning negligent construction, echoing principles we have navigated in the past. Notably, our firm, **Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP**, acted as counsel for the successful parties in [*Breen v Lake of Bays*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc533/2021onsc533.html) and [*Wesley v Geneau*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc868/2020onsc868.html), both of which factor significantly into the trial judge’s analysis. This latest judgment in *Oliva* provides a modern roadmap for how courts interpret the intersection of contract law, the Ontario *Building Code*, and the duty of care owed by builders to subsequent homeowners.

## The Factual Matrix: Purchase of a Significantly Renovated Home

The litigation centered on a property in the Township of Hamilton purchased by Rose and Leo Oliva from Russell and Cindy Dickson in 2007. The Dicksons were experienced in identifying local properties with “upgrade potential”. Shortly after purchasing the home in late 2006, they commenced a massive renovation project.

These renovations were not merely cosmetic; they involved raising the entire home by four to six feet to accommodate a new basement and the installation of a new septic system. While a permit was obtained for a garage addition, no building permits were ever applied for or issued for the structural lifting of the house or the septic system, as required by the [*Building Code Act, 1992*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1992-c-23/227128/so-1992-c-23.html).

The relationship between the parties was unusually close. The Olivas initially rented a condominium from the Dicksons and eventually moved into a trailer on the subject property while construction was ongoing. Leo Oliva was even hired by the Dicksons as a “site super,” monitoring the progress of the renovations. Despite this involvement, the truth about the missing permits only surfaced years later, following a basement flood and a subsequent inquiry to the Township.

## Protecting the Public: The Purpose of the Building Code

In reaching his decision, Justice Sutherland emphasized the fundamental importance of Ontario’s regulatory framework. He noted that “the purpose of the construction scheme in Ontario on the application for a building permit, granting of the building permit, and subsequent inspections… is to protect the health and safety of the public”.

The Court observed that these regulations ensure a uniform standard of construction so that any purchaser can have “some comfort that the home constructed complies, at a minimum, with the construction standards imposed by the legislative scheme.” By failing to obtain permits, the defendants bypassed the very safeguards intended to prevent structural failures or hazardous living conditions.

## The “Officious Bystander” and Implied Contractual Terms

The defendants argued that because the construction was substantially complete at the time of the sale, and the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) contained an “entire agreement” clause, no warranties regarding the construction could exist.

The Court disagreed, applying the “officious bystander test” to determine if a term should be implied into the contract. This test asks whether, if a hypothetical bystander had asked the parties if a certain term should be included, they would have both replied, “oh, of course”. Justice Sutherland determined that:

- Compliance with the *Building Code* was an intended part of the APS.
- Russell Dickson testified he had every intention to comply with the law.
- The Olivas certainly expected the construction to be legal.

Therefore, it was an implied term of the contract that the raising of the house and the septic installation would comply with the law.

## Tort Liability and the Standard of Care for Negligent Construction

The decision further solidifies the duty of care owed by those who build or renovate for resale. Following the lead of [*Winnipeg Condominium*](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii146/1995canlii146.html), the Court found that contractors and seller-builders owe a duty in tort to subsequent purchasers if a failure to take reasonable care creates defects posing a substantial danger.

The Court held that:

- The standard of care for a “reasonably competent contractor” includes obtaining necessary permits and inspections;
- Failing to do so constitutes a breach of the standard of care; and
- The *Building Code* serves as the minimum standard for such construction.

## The Burden of Proof: A Warning on Damages

While the Olivas won on the law, they were only partially successful on damages, proving that establishing a breach is not the same as proving a loss.

*The Septic Success: $57,701.87 Awarded*

The plaintiffs were successful regarding the septic system. Expert evidence showed the installation was faulty, located too close to the house, and contaminated the water well. Because the link between the breach and the damage was clear, the Court awarded the costs to relocate the system.

*The House Raising Failure: Damages Dismissed*

The claim for the costs of “underpinning” the house foundations was dismissed. Despite the breach of the standard of care, the Court found gaps in the evidence.

The house had shown no signs of settlement or movement since 2007. The plaintiffs had already performed their own repairs using a “squeezing” method that added 1,500 square feet of space. There was no evidence presented that this specific method was necessary to fix a structural defect, nor was the actual cost of this work provided to the Court.

## Conclusion

*Oliva v Dickson* reminds us that house flipping and structural renovations are not exempt from the law. If you perform structural work on residential houses in Ontario, you must follow the permit process intended to protect the public. For buyers, this case provides a path to recovery if the construction proves defective; for sellers, it is a warning that unpermitted work can lead to significant liability.

At **Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP**, our team continues to lead the way in navigating these complex legal landscapes, providing strategic guidance to both property owners and purchasers in *Building Code* compliance and construction liability disputes.

**Categories:** Municipal Litigation

**Tags:** Building Permit, Construction Negligence, Ontario Superior Court, Real Estate Negligence, Residential, Trial Decision

---

### [Latent Defects and Vendor Liability: Lessons from Austin v. MacFarlane](https://dcmlaw.ca/latent-defects-and-vendor-liability-lessons-from-austin-v-macfarlane/)

**Published:** March 6, 2026
**Author:** Peter Reinitzer

**Excerpt:** A purchaser must inspect, but a vendor cannot hide behind "buyer beware" after actively concealing what is wrong with a home. In Austin v MacFarlane, 2026 ONSC 463, a North Bay buyer discovered foundation cracks, hidden mould, and an improperly built deck days after closing, with repairs exceeding $119,000. The Ontario Superior Court explains where vendor silence ends and active concealment begins.

**Content:**

The news that a Toronto shelter was facing $250,000 in damages after heavy rain—and that their insurance provider would likely not cover the cost—is a nightmare scenario for any property owner. According to [the recent CTV article](https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/local/article/toronto-womens-shelter-scrambling-to-raise-funds-after-water-leak-reveals-250k-in-building-damages/), the denial appears to hinge on the fact that the water “came from an outside source.”

This is a story I see often in my practice. A property owner suffers a devastating flood. They make the panicked call to their insurance company, only to be told that their policy doesn’t cover “overland flooding.” Or, they have a “sewer backup” endorsement, but the $25,000 limit doesn’t cover the cost of the remediation.

For many, this is the end of the road. They absorb the financial loss, pay for a patch-up job, and pray it doesn’t happen again.

But what if the insurance denial is a clue that the real problem isn’t just the rain, but how your home was built? As a construction negligence litigation lawyer, I often see that the water is just a symptom. The disease is a construction defect.

## The Insurance Trap: What Your Policy Really Covers

When your basement floods, you’re not thinking about how the water got in; you’re thinking about how to get it out. But for your insurance company, the “how” is everything.

Insurance policies are notoriously specific. A standard policy might cover sudden, accidental water damage, like a burst pipe. However, they frequently exclude damage from ice buildup or “overland flooding”—water seeping in from an outside source.

Even when a policy applies, coverage limits are often shockingly low. Worse, your policy is designed to cover the consequential damage—the ruined carpets, the wet drywall, the damaged furniture. It is not designed to pay for the root cause, such as excavating your foundation, re-grading your property, or fixing the foundation cracks.

That fix is your responsibility, leaving your home vulnerable to the next storm unless you pay for professionals to identify and fix the problem.

## The Real Culprit: When a “Flood” is Actually “Construction Negligence”

The CTV article noted that the shelter “appears to have long-standing issues with grading and waterproofing.” This is the key. The building isn’t just a passive victim of the weather; it is failing in its primary duty to keep the elements out.

This is the core of a construction negligence claim. In Ontario, builders, contractors, designers, and municipal inspectors are required to adhere to the Ontario Building Code and industry standards of care. When they fail, causing you financial loss, they can be held liable.

Common construction defects that lead to water intrusion include:

- *Improper Grading*: The ground slopes towards your foundation instead of away from it.
- *Failed Waterproofing*: The waterproof membrane on your foundation was improperly installed, is the wrong material, or was damaged.
- *Foundation Cracks*: Cracks that were not properly repaired, allowing a clear path for water.
- *Failed Weeping Tiles*: The perimeter drain system is crushed, clogged, or was never installed correctly.
- *Window and Door Errors*: Improper flashing and sealing around windows, window wells, and doors.

Depending on the circumstances, a claim may be brought against the original builder, designers, or the municipality responsible for inspecting construction.

## What If You’re Not the Original Owner?

You may still have a claim against the original builder, the municipality (for negligent inspection), or the previous owner. A seller must disclose any “latent defect” they are aware of, meaning a hidden, significant flaw not discoverable on a routine inspection. If you can prove the prior owners knew about the flooding and actively concealed it (e.g. by painting over water-damaged framing or mould), or lied on a Seller Property Information Sheet, you may be able to hold them responsible.

## The Right Time to Call: After Emergency Cleanup, Before Permanent Repairs

After a flood, your priority is safety and mitigating immediate damage. You should notify your insurer who will likely call an emergency restoration company to pump out water and begin professional drying. This is critical to prevent mould and stop the damage from spreading.

However, once this emergency “rip-out” and “dry-out” phase is under control, a crucial decision point arrives. Before you hire a contractor to start the permanent, structural repairs—like re-grading, excavating the foundation, or even just putting up new drywall—your next call should be to an experienced construction litigation lawyer.

Here’s why this timing is so important:

Restoration crews remove wet materials, often exposing the very defect that caused the flood—a foundation crack, a failed seal, or bad waterproofing. This critical evidence is often exposed at this exact moment. Before a contractor covers it up, a lawyer will retain a forensic engineer to inspect and document the source of the failure. This “cause and origin” report is the foundation of your case. Repairing the defect before this inspection can destroy the proof you need.

A restoration company dries your house. A general contractor may just patch it up. A lawyer, working with an engineer, ensures you get a permanent solution based on a proper diagnosis, not a cosmetic repair that will fail again.

A key benefit of hiring a lawyer is our roster of trusted professionals. We don’t just sue; we help clients solve complex problems. We will connect you with a forensic engineer to find the defect and then, based on their report, find specialized contractors to properly remedy it.

A major flood is devastating. Once the panic subsides and your home is dry but not rebuilt, a strategic pause for legal advice can mean the difference between a temporary patch and a permanent solution—and the difference between you paying for it, or the people who caused the problem.

**Categories:** Municipal Litigation

**Tags:** Construction Negligence, Damages, Latent Defects, Negligent Misrepresentation, Ontario Superior Court, Real Estate Negligence, Residential, Trial Decision

---

### [Rule 53.03 and Opposing Late-Filed Expert Reports](https://dcmlaw.ca/rule-53-03-and-opposing-late-filed-expert-reports/)

**Published:** June 2, 2025
**Author:** Hudson Chalmers

**Excerpt:** A March 2022 amendment quietly raised the bar for litigants who serve their expert reports late. Where the old rule granted leave almost as of course, the party at fault must now show a reasonable explanation and the absence of uncompensable prejudice or undue delay. Three years of Ontario rulings show the courts taking the change seriously, which makes opposing a late report a tactic well worth considering.

**Content:**

On March 31, 2022, the Rules introduced a change to the test for leave to call expert evidence in the event of late-filed expert reports. Over the last three years, the Courts have interpreted this Rule change to make it more difficult for litigants to rely on expert evidence from late-filed expert reports.

Timelines for service of expert reports comes from Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. For an expert to be called as a witness at trial, expert reports must be served 90 days prior to the pre-trial conference, responding expert reports 60 days prior to the pre-trial conference, and supplementary reports 45 days prior to trial. These timelines can be extended at a pre-trial, a case conference, on a motion, or on consent.

Prior to March 31, 2022, Rule 53.08(1) stated that “leave shall be granted on such terms as are just and with an adjournment if necessary, unless to do so would cause prejudice to the opposite party or will cause undue delay in the conduct of the trial”. The wording of this Rule has since been changed to:

*\[L\]eave may be granted if the party responsible for the failure satisfies the judge that,*

*(a) there is a reasonable explanation for the failure; and*
*(b) granting the leave would not,*

*(i) cause prejudice to the opposing party that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment, or*
*(ii) cause undue delay in the conduct of the trial.*

Under the old Rule, leave shall be granted, but under the new Rule, leave may be granted, only if the moving party establishes both elements (a) and (b) of the legal test. According to Edwards R.S.J. in Agha v Munroe, 2022 ONSC 2508,

*\[32\] Lawyers and litigants need to adapt to the new rule immediately. The late delivery of expert reports simply will not be rubber-stamped by the court. By shifting the onus to the party seeking the indulgence and changing the word “shall” to “may”, the exercise of the court’s discretion will, in my view, result in far fewer adjournments and more productive pre-trials. There will always be circumstances that are beyond the control of counsel and the parties which will fall within the definition of a “reasonable explanation” for failing to comply with the timelines for the service of expert reports. In this case, no such reasonable explanation was provided to the court.*

In Agha, the plaintiff’s explanation for the failure to serve the expert report prior to the pre-trial was due to the cost of the expert reports. This was not a “reasonable” explanation, and leave to obtain a late expert report was denied.

According to Edwards R.S.J., “\[t\]he purpose of the new rule is… to send a very loud and clear message to all sides of the Bar, that expert reports are to be served in a timely manner and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 53.03(1) and (2).”

The Agha decision has been followed in subsequent decisions, giving some guidance as to when leave to file a late expert report will be permitted.

In Forsung v Neadow, 2023 ONSC 5873, the late served report was served 1 month prior to the pre-trial. The plaintiff pointed to inadvertence as the reasonable explanation for late filing. In that case, Muszynski J. found that “inadvertence does not constitute a reasonable explanation in these circumstances. On this basis alone, the plaintiffs’ motion must fail.”

In Quinn v Rogers, 2024 ONSC 1967, the defence filed reports 41 days prior to the pre-trial, and the defendant pointed to inadvertence as the reasonable explanation for late filing. Opposing the motion for leave, the plaintiff argued that inadvertence is not a good enough reason, as inadvertence is not an excuse for a missed limitation period. The defendant relied on a lawyer’s affidavit advising that the lawyer mistakenly believed that the pre-trial was at the end of March (rather than end of February) and accordingly he believed his report was due at the end of January. In that case, there was no cross-examination of the affidavit, so the evidence of the inadvertence was uncontested. In deciding to grant leave to the late-filing of the expert reports, MacNeil J. found that

*\[T\]he explanation given by the Defendant Physicians’ lawyer for missing the delivery deadline is sparse and no real context or details were provided. Nonetheless, I accept the affidavit evidence and find that the failure to deliver the three expert reports at least 60 days before the pre-trial conference was due to an inadvertent mistake.*

In Veran v Derbyshire, 2024 ONSC 1585, the plaintiffs brought a motion one month before trial to exclude the defendants from relying on non-compliant late served expert reports. While Wojciechowski J. found that the defendants did establish the criterion for a reasonable explanation, the plaintiffs were successful in getting two expert reports of the defence excluded entirely, under subrule 53.08(1)(b):

*\[W\]here the late service of the defendant physicians’ expert reports do not allow the plaintiffs enough time to consider and to provide a response before a scheduled trial date, then no matter how reasonable the explanation, the underlying evidence set out within the reports shall not be introduced at trial.*

Based on the recent development of the jurisprudence on late-filed expert reports, the following take-aways can be made:

(i) There is a loud and clear message to the Bar that expert reports are to be served in a timely manner;
(ii) The test for leave to file an expert report late is a two-step test, where the moving party has the onus to establish both (a) there was a reasonable explanation, and (b) that there is no prejudice; and
(iii) In some cases, like Forsung, inadvertence is not an acceptable reasonable explanation, whereas in other cases, like Quinn, inadvertence can be an acceptable reasonable explanation.

If a party is attempting to file an expert report late, this needs to be determined by way of motion. The motions judge will need to weigh the evidence of the explanation, to establish if it can be found to be a reasonable explanation. In the event that the motions judge finds there is a reasonable explanation for late-filing, the motions judge will then need to determine the second step of the test.

Moving forward, it is essential that one is able to get all necessary expert reports well in advance of pre-trial in accordance with Rule 53.03. In the event that the opposing party is seeking to file an expert report late, it is beneficial to oppose this request, as the Court is moving away from rubber-stamping late reports. If successful in having an opponent’s expert report excluded from trial, this will improve your chances of success in the litigation.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Catastrophic Injury, Expert Evidence, Rules of Civil Procedure

---

### [A Green Light for Pierringer Deals: How the Court in Cadieux Emboldens Settling Parties](https://dcmlaw.ca/a-green-light-for-pierringer-deals-how-the-court-in-cadieux-emboldens-settling-parties/)

**Published:** June 9, 2025
**Author:** Peter Reinitzer

**Excerpt:** The Court of Appeal for Ontario has again signalled how strongly the law favours settlement, even where a non-settling party may face real prejudice. In Cadieux v Cadieux, arising from a catastrophic multi-vehicle collision involving two children, the court treated the finality offered by tools like Pierringer Agreements as the priority, leaving co-defendants to manage their own exposure to joint and several liability rather than looking to the court for protection.

**Content:**

In the landscape of Canadian civil litigation, the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in [*Cadieux v. Cadieux*](https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/23334/index.do) stands as a powerful affirmation of the judiciary’s strong preference for promoting and upholding settlement agreements. The ruling sends an unequivocal message to the legal community: the public interest in resolving complex, multi-party disputes through settlement will often take precedence, even when a non-settling party faces the potential for significant prejudice. The court’s focus was not on achieving a perfect allocation of risk among all defendants, but rather on facilitating the finality and efficiency that settlement tools, such as Pierringer Agreements, provide. This decision underscores a judicial philosophy that champions the resolution of litigation, placing the onus on defendants to strategically manage their own risks in multi-defendant lawsuits rather than relying on the courts to protect them from the harsh consequences of joint and several liability.

## The Factual Background

The litigation stemmed from a tragic motor vehicle accident that resulted in catastrophic injuries to two children. A lawsuit was commenced on their behalf, targeting three parties:

1. Their father, who was the driver of their vehicle.
2. The owner and operator of a commercial tractor-trailer (United Petroleum).
3. The City of Ottawa, for alleged negligence in the design of the intersection.

The financial stakes were immense, with a claim for future care costs alone possibly exceeding $14 million. This made the available insurance coverage a critical issue. The father was insured for $2 million, while the trucking company held a $5 million policy. The City of Ottawa was self-insured.

## The Pierringer Predicament and the Appeal

Before trial, the plaintiffs negotiated a Pierringer Agreement (or “partial settlement agreement”) with the City of Ottawa. This agreement allowed the City to exit the lawsuit, leaving the plaintiffs to pursue the remaining defendants, the father and United Petroleum.

United Petroleum vigorously opposed the court’s approval of this settlement, arguing that it created significant and unfair prejudice. The core of the issue was the rule of joint and several liability. Without the settlement, had the case proceeded to trial and the father been found liable for an amount exceeding his insurance policy, both United Petroleum and the self-insured City of Ottawa would have been jointly responsible for covering the shortfall. The Pierringer Agreement, however, fundamentally altered this dynamic. By removing the City from the equation, it left United Petroleum as the sole remaining defendant with deep pockets, meaning it alone would be forced to cover any shortfall created by the underinsured father. This concentration of risk was the basis for United Petroleum’s appeal.

## Key Takeaways for Litigators and Insurers

The Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the settlement provides critical guidance and some stark reminders for all parties involved in multi-defendant litigation.

- **Settlement is Paramount:** The court has once again confirmed that settlement is a cornerstone of our civil justice system. The policy goal of encouraging parties to resolve their disputes will not be lightly interfered with. Arguments of prejudice to a non-settling defendant, while considered, will face a very high bar.
- **The Power of the Pierringer:** This decision solidifies the Pierringer Agreement as a potent strategic tool. For a defendant, settling early can be the most effective way to manage risk and achieve certainty, particularly when a co-defendant is underinsured or potentially insolvent. It incentivizes defendants to assess their exposure realistically and act decisively.
- **The Harsh Reality of Joint and Several Liability:** The case is a textbook example of the risk posed by joint and several liability. A well-insured defendant can be exposed to paying a damages award far exceeding its actual degree of fault. The court has signaled that this risk is a feature of the system, not a bug, and it is a risk that parties must manage themselves through negotiation and settlement.
- **The Peril of “Waiting it Out”:** The outcome for United Petroleum highlights the danger of being the last defendant standing. The decision implicitly advises litigators that decisive, early action in exploring settlement can be a far better strategy than waiting and hoping for a favourable outcome at trial, especially when the financial position of a co-defendant is a concern.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Catastrophic Injury, Court of Appeal, Motor Vehicle Accident, Personal Injury Settlement, Pierringer Agreement

---

### [Significant Differences In Title Insurance Policy Wording a Potential Cause for Concern for Lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/significant-differences-in-title-insurance-policy-wording-a-potential-cause-for-concern-for-lawyers/)

**Published:** August 7, 2025
**Author:** David Morin

**Excerpt:** Ontario has four licensed title insurers, and unlike in the United States, no regulator standardizes what their policies say. Having acted for homeowners insured by each of them, the firm's insurance litigation group has seen how a difference of two or three words can decide a future claim. The harder question is for the lawyers selling these policies at closing: on what basis is that choice being made?

**Content:**

Our Insurance Litigation group at [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/) continues to receive inquiries from homeowners that have claims under the title insurance policies they purchased through their lawyer at the time they bought their house. In our earlier Commentaries we have discussed some of the Coverages provided under the policies sold by lawyers to their clients today. You can view [these Commentaries](https://dcmlaw.ca/?s=title+insurance&e_search_props=9034156-955) on our website.

There are four Insurers licensed in Ontario by the [Financial Services Regulatory Authority](https://www.fsrao.ca/) (“FSRA” – formerly the Ontario Insurance Commission). FSRA is charged with regulating the market conduct of Insurers but, regrettably, has no rules or regulations governing the conduct of these Insurers. This is remarkable given these Companies are regulated in every US State by regulations that run to hundreds of pages; standardize the policies; determine what a title insurer can, or can’t, insure; and what it may, or may not, charge for the coverage.

At [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/) we have represented homeowners insured by each of the different Insurers, we have had to review each of their policies. Sadly, there are significant differences which raise impossible questions for the lawyers selling these policies at the time the home is purchased. How can the lawyer anticipate a future situation where two or three words in a policy might make a difference to a future claim?

A glaring example of this occurred in [*MacDonald* v. *Chicago Title Insurance Company of Canada*, 2015 ONCA 842](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2015/2015onca842/2015onca842.html) the case we discussed in my first Commentary. A previous homeowner had removed an interior structural wall without first obtaining a Building Permit. The MacDonald’s claimed under their Chicago Title policy. Their policy provided coverage if the MacDonald’s were “forced to remove” a part of their structure. Chicago denied on the basis that the City was not making the MacDonald’s “remove” anything. Quite the contrary – too much had already been “removed”. Chicago’s denial wound up in Court and the Court of Appeal wound up, respectfully, trying to stretch the very definition of “title” to find coverage for the MacDonald’s. When the MacDonald’s bought their home (in 2006) their lawyer could have chosen a policy from First Canadian Title, or Stewart Title, that provided coverage should the MacDonalds be *“forced to remove or remedy”* their structure. Lacking the two words *“or remedy”* sent the MacDonalds into protracted litigation instead of a fixed home.

We have quite a few of the insurers’ present forms of policy in our files. Regrettably, and another consequence of these insurers not being regulated in Canada, they can change the terms of their polices at will. In most US States they would need permission from the State Insurance Regulator to make a change. For the purpose of this Commentary, I need to advise that I am looking at a FCT *“Home Ownership Protection Policy”* issued in 2019; a Chicago Title *“Residential Owner’s Policy (Canada)”* issued in 2020; a Stewart Title *“Gold Comprehensive Protection Owner’s Policy”* issued in 2018; and a LawPRO *“TitlePLUS Policy of Insurance for Owner”* issued in 2024.

Differences that could be consequential when a claim is made begin with the first sentence. Capitalized words are defined terms in each policy. That said, and in my view, Title Insurance contracts are a form of consumer protection here in Canada and should be read with this basic rule in mind. So, let us continue in our analysis.

FCT begins their policy with: *“This policy insures you against Actual Loss, and any costs, legal fees and expenses provided under this Policy resulting from the Covered Risks set forth below….”*

Chicago Title begins their policy with: *“This policy insures You against certain specific risks to your Title or the Land ….*

Stewart Title begins their policy with: *“This policy insures your Title to your Land ….”*

Finally, LawPRO begins their policy with: *“This Policy insures your Title to the Land and the legal services provided by your lawyer…”*

Each of the policies uses different language (particularly Chicago Title) to do so but each defines the word “Land” as, essentially, the house. There are then various covered risks listed that in no way effect “title”. Title is an ownership right and each of the polices covers risks that in no way impact ownership. They each cover the risk that the house was built without a valid building permit. They each cover the risk that the zoning won’t permit residential use. They each cover the risk that the Building Dept. of the Municipality had something in its files on the day you closed. So, what does Stewart mean when it says their policy insures your “Title to *your* Land”. What does LawPRO mean when their policy says they insure your “Title to *the* Land”. Is there a difference?

More importantly it appears both Stewart and LawPRO, but not FCT and not Chicago, are reserving the ability to deny coverage of a risk that speaks only to “Land” – like that no building permit ever issued – on the basis that they only insure “*Title*” to your Land, or “*Title* to the Land. Not the “*Land*”.

There are other discrepancies in the policies issued by these unregulated insurers but one in particular is on point here. The three US based insurers FCT, Chicago and Stewart have denied claims made under the following Covered Risk (taken from Chicago’s policy):

*\#23. You are forced by a Governmental Authority to remove or remedy (added after MacDonald!) your existing structures or any part of them, other than boundary walls or fences, because any portion was built without obtaining a required building permit from the proper Governmental Authority”*

It is our view that *“obtaining a required building permit”* has to mean obtaining a *closed* permit. Simply applying for a permit and getting a permit number as the Municipality begins its inspection protocols means nothing. Thousands of dollars of work, even hundreds of thousands of dollars of work, can remain outstanding to be done after a permit has simply been opened. An interpretation that suggests merely having applied for a permit is sufficient makes the coverage meaningless. It must mean something. It appears LawPRO agrees. They describe the following as a covered risk:

*\#23. You are forced by a Governmental Authority … to remove or remedy your existing structures or any part of them, other than a fence or boundary wall, because… **(f) There is an open building permit**; or…* \[My emphasis\]

But on the other hand, LawPRO starts their policy stating “*This Policy insures your Title to the Land”.* Are they saying open building permits are title matters?

I plan to describe some other important differences in these policies in future Commentaries but will conclude this Commentary by asking how lawyers on real estate transactions are choosing which policy to sell to their clients. Is it on the basis of language differences in the policy protecting your clients or because of what the Insurer does for you? This is an important conversation to have with your lawyer.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Real Estate Negligence, Title Insurance

---

### [Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds $1.5 Million Jury Award in TTC Bus Collision Case](https://dcmlaw.ca/ontario-court-of-appeal-upholds-1-5-million-jury-award-in-ttc-bus-collision-case/)

**Published:** August 18, 2025
**Author:** Margaret Klassen

**Excerpt:** A pickup truck stopped in traffic, a rear-end collision with a TTC bus, and a jury award topping $1.5 million for chronic pain and lost earning capacity. On appeal, the defendants attacked the trial judge's jury charge on causation, apportionment, and past income loss. In Meldazy v Nassar, 2025 ONCA 590, the Court of Appeal found no error and dismissed the appeal, a reminder that an appeal is not a second trial.

**Content:**

In [*Meldazy v. Nassar*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca590/2025onca590.html), the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a jury award of over $1.5 million in damages to a man injured in a low-impact collision with a TTC bus in 2016. On appeal, the defendants challenged the trial judge’s refusal to put their proposed questions on causation and apportionment to the jury and her discussion of the evidence and instructions on past income loss in her jury charge. Finding no error in the trial judge’s exercise of discretion, the Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

The respondent was successfully represented on appeal by Partner [Christopher Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/) and [myself](https://dcmlaw.ca/margaret-klassen/).

**Background**

On January 18, 2016, the plaintiff (respondent) was stopped in traffic when his pickup truck was rear-ended by a TTC bus. He claimed that the accident caused neck and back injuries, chronic pain, psychological injuries, and a reduced capacity to work.

Following the TTC accident, the respondent was involved in two subsequent motor vehicle collisions but maintained that these later incidents only temporarily aggravated the injuries caused by the TTC accident. The defendants (appellants) argued they played a significant role in his ongoing condition.

At the start of the five-week jury trial, the appellants admitted negligence and liability, leaving the jury to determine the amount of damages attributable to the TTC accident. The jury awarded damages totalling over $1.5 million, broken down as follows:

- General non-pecuniary, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment: $157,000.
- Past income loss: $90,000.
- Past medical expenses: $82,457.
- Future income loss and loss of earning capacity: $725,000.
- Future care costs: $460,000.
- Future housekeeping/home maintenance: $100,000.

**The Appeal**

The appellants sought a new trial or to set aside the past income loss award, advancing four grounds:

1. **The trial judge erred by not putting their proposed causation question to the jury.**

The question put to the jury was: *In what amount do you assess the damages of the plaintiff arising from the motor vehicle collision on January 18th, 2016?*

They argued that the jury should have been asked directly whether the TTC accident caused the plaintiff’s injuries, particularly given their biomechanical expert’s evidence that the low-speed (8 km/h) impact was too minor to cause such injuries.

2. **The trial judge erred by not allowing their proposed jury question on apportioning damages.**

At trial and on appeal, the appellants conceded that apportionment of damages could be properly addressed through jury instructions but maintained that the preferable method was through specific jury questions that.

The trial judge declined to put their proposed series of questions to the jury because they were overly complicated, flawed, and presumed that the plaintiff had suffered divisible injuries. The appellants argued that their questions were consistent with the approach upheld in *Hicks v Cooper*, and that the jury instructions were insufficient.

3. **The trial judge failed to summarize evidence in the jury charge relevant to the plaintiff’s credibility.**

The appellants argued that the trial judge’s summary omitted a key statement proposed by the defence that affected the plaintiff’s credibility, and that this omission undermined their theory of the case.

4. **The trial judge failed to instruct the jury to disregard the plaintiff’s expert’s evidence on past income loss.**

The plaintiff’s economic loss expert calculated past income loss by using statistical evidence of similarly situated individuals. They argued that the theory used reflected a company loss rather than the plaintiff’s personal loss because it was based on the cost of a replacement worker.

Despite having the expert’s report prior to trial and making no objection to the evidence at trial, they argued that the jury should have been told to disregard it.

**The ONCA Decision**

Justice Simmons, writing for a unanimous panel, dismissed each ground of appeal.

Causation

The Court was satisfied that the combined effect of the question put to the jury and the trial judge’s clear “but for’ causation instructions was sufficient for the jury to understand the assessment they were required to make. The trial judge’s decision was aligned with the principle that civil jury questions and jury instructions “are intended to work hand in glove”.

Notably, trial counsel did not object to the jury charge on this issue nor did they allege on appeal that there was any error in the instructions.

Apportionment

The Court was satisfied with the trial judge’s discretion to reject the defendants’ complex, flawed questions that assumed divisible injuries and which deviated from the Hicks model. She properly addressed the issue by adopting the less complex question proposed by the plaintiff and providing proper jury instructions.

The appellants did not object at trial to the instructions they challenged on this appeal, and in fact, expressly abandoned this ground of appeal in their appellate factum. Nonetheless, the appellants made oral submissions on the point, leaving the respondent unprepared to comprehensively respond. The Court held that the jury instruction issue was “best left to another day when they can be properly raised and fully argued.”

Summary of Evidence

The Court found that the trial judge properly addressed the appellants’ concern when she warned the jury that her summary was not exhaustive, that they should rely on their own recollection, and that credibility was for them to decide. It was trial counsel’s decision to not include this evidence in their statement of the defence position that was included in the jury charge. Nonetheless, they expressly summarized the evidence at issue in their closing address.

Expert Evidence

The Court held that the trial judge properly exercised her gatekeeper function in relation to the expert evidence, and reaffirmed the high standard required to vary the amount of past income loss awarded by the jury. The trial judge correctly identified that the evidence was not premised on a replacement worker being hired but rather on valuing the extent to which the respondent’s earning capacity had been diminished based on the cost of the work he claimed he was unable to perform.

The alleged flaws in the evidence raised by the appellants went largely to weight rather than its admissibility. The appellants did not demonstrate that it was “so plainly unreasonable and unjust as to satisfy the court that no jury reviewing the evidence as a whole and acting judicially could have reached it”. It was open to the jury to award $90,000 for past income loss as it was supported by other evidence the plaintiff adduced at trial.

**Conclusion**

This case provides key reminders for trial counsel:

- Jury questions must be clear and neutral; overly convoluted questions are likely to be rejected.
- Jury instructions “work hand in glove” with jury questions and must be considered as a whole.
- Be proactive with objections.
- Objections to expert evidence, expert methodology, jury questions or instructions, must be raised at trial, not on appeal.
- Don’t expect the trial judge to repeat your narrative of the case. Use closing arguments strategically.

Ultimately, *Meldazy v Nassar* serves as a reminder that appeals are not a second trial. A successful appeal requires showing an actual error in fact or law, not simply dissatisfaction with the result.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Court of Appeal, Damages, Juries, Motor Vehicle Accident

---

### [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP Lawyers Recognized in The Best Lawyers in Canada™ 2026 Edition](https://dcmlaw.ca/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp-lawyers-recognized-in-the-best-lawyers-in-canada-2026-edition/)

**Published:** September 4, 2025
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Several lawyers at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP have been recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada, a peer-review honour built entirely on evaluations by leading lawyers across the country. The recognitions span insurance law, medical negligence, and personal injury litigation, reflecting the depth of the firm's bench across its core practice areas.

**Content:**

[Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/) is pleased to announce that several of its distinguished lawyers have been recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada™, underscoring the firm’s exceptional expertise in civil litigation, insurance law, medical malpractice, and personal injury law.

The[ Best Lawyers in Canada](https://www.bestlawyers.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/104420/CA)™ recognition represents one of the most prestigious peer-review publications in the legal profession, based entirely on rigorous peer evaluations by leading lawyers across the country. This distinguished honor reflects the firm’s unwavering commitment to delivering superior legal representation and achieving outstanding results for clients.

The recognized lawyers demonstrate the depth and breadth of expertise that Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP brings to complex legal matters. Their inclusion in this esteemed publication validates the firm’s position as a leading practice in specialized areas of litigation, particularly in cases involving significant insurance claims, medical negligence, and catastrophic personal injury matters.

The following lawyers have been recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada™ and Ones to Watch\*:

- **David Morin** – Insurance Law (Huntsville, ON)
- **Jim Davidson** – Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation (Toronto, ON)
- **Paul Cahill** – Medical Negligence, Personal Injury Litigation (Toronto, ON)
- **Chris Morrison** – Personal Injury Litigation (Toronto, ON)
- **Ron Strike** – Personal Injury Litigation (Bowmanville, ON)
- **Joel Cormier** – Personal Injury Litigation (Toronto, ON)
- **Tiffany Usher\*** – Insurance Law (Toronto, ON)
- **Hudson Chalmers\*** – Personal Injury Litigation (Toronto, ON)

The firm’s comprehensive approach to client service, combined with decades of collective experience, has established Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP as a trusted advisor to individuals and insurance companies throughout Ontario. The recognition in The Best Lawyers in Canada™ further reinforces the firm’s reputation for excellence and professional integrity.

With offices strategically located in Toronto, Huntsville, and Bowmanville, Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP serves clients across Ontario, providing accessible legal expertise while maintaining the highest standards of professional service. The firm’s multi-office presence enables comprehensive coverage and personalized attention to clients’ diverse legal needs.

This recognition reflects not only individual excellence but also the collaborative culture and rigorous standards that define the firm’s practice. The lawyers’ acknowledgment in The Best Lawyers in Canada™ demonstrates their peers’ respect for their legal acumen, ethical standards, and successful track record in complex litigation matters.

## Profiles of Recognized Lawyers

### [David Morin](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/)

- **Expertise**: Civil Litigation, Personal Injury, Product Liability, Municipal Liability, Professional Negligence
- **Background**: Managing Partner. Appointed Deputy Judge of the Superior Court of Justice since 2003.
- **Notable Achievements**: Leadership roles in the Muskoka Law Association and Ontario Bar Association.
- **Location**: Huntsville, ON

### [Jim Davidson](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson/)

- **Expertise**: Insurance Law, Civil Litigation, Personal Injury
- **Background**: Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation. Holds a Master of Laws in Dispute Resolution from the University of Sydney, Australia.
- **Notable Achievements**: Head of the Insurance Group, consulted for uninsured and underinsured loss coverage. Recognized by *Best Lawyers in Canada* since 2018.
- **Location**: Toronto, ON

### [Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/)

- **Expertise**: Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury Litigation
- **Background**: Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation. Called to the Ontario Bar in 2005.
- **Notable Achievements**: $11.5 million judgment in a medical malpractice case resulting in cerebral palsy. Recognized by *Best Lawyers in Canada* since 2021.
- **Location**: Toronto, ON

### [Chris Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/)

- **Expertise**: Appeals, Civil Litigation, Insurance Law
- **Background**: Over 25 years specializing in appeals and civil litigation.
- **Notable Achievements**: Argued milestone civil appeals, including the largest wrongful death general damages award in Canadian history. Recognized by *Best Lawyers in Canada* since 2023.
- **Location**: Toronto, ON

### [Ron Strike](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike/)

- **Expertise**: Personal Injury Law
- **Background**: Graduated from Queen’s University Law School in 1981, with over 40 years representing seriously injured clients.
- **Notable Achievements**: Extensive experience litigating catastrophic injury cases at the local, national, and international levels. Recognized by *Best Lawyers in Canada* since 2024.
- **Location**: Bowmanville, ON

### [Joel Cormier](https://dcmlaw.ca/joel-cormier/)

- **Expertise**: Insurance Defense, Subrogation, Construction, Personal Injury Litigation
- **Background**: Called to the bar in 2006, LL.B. from Queen’s University in 2005.
- **Notable Achievements**: Recognized by *Best Lawyers in Canada* since 2023; extensive trial and appellate experience.
- **Location**: Toronto, ON

### [Tiffany Usher](https://dcmlaw.ca/tiffany-usher/)

- **Expertise**: Subrogation, Coverage, Tort/Personal Injury, Occupiers’ Liability, Land Use Planning, Property Damage, Product Liability
- **Background**: Juris Doctor from University of Western Ontario; represents individual and insurance clients.
- **Notable Achievements**: Experience at every level of Ontario’s courts and land boards; recognized for a tactical and results-driven approach.
- **Location**: Toronto, ON

### [Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/)

- **Expertise**: Personal Injury, Insurance Litigation, Medical Malpractice
- **Background**: Juris Doctor from University of Windsor, called to the Bar in 2020.
- **Notable Achievements**: Known for his balanced approach and focus on both sides of disputes for client advantage.
- **Location**: Toronto, ON

## About Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is a specialized litigation firm serving clients across Ontario from offices in Toronto, Huntsville, and Bowmanville. The firm focuses exclusively on civil litigation, insurance law, medical malpractice, and personal injury matters, providing expert legal representation with a commitment to achieving optimal outcomes for clients through strategic advocacy and comprehensive case management.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Best Law Firm

---

### [The High Cost of Unreasonable Conduct: Why a "Hardball" Litigation Strategy is a Costly Gamble](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-high-cost-of-unreasonable-conduct-why-a-hardball-litigation-strategy-is-a-costly-gamble/)

**Published:** September 9, 2025
**Author:** Peter Reinitzer

**Excerpt:** Offer nothing, force the plaintiff to finance a trial, and hope they fold: it is a familiar defence gamble, and a growing line of Ontario cases shows how badly it can go. In Barry v Anantharajah, 2025 ONCA 603, a defendant who never made a monetary offer faced a costs award reported to dwarf the plaintiff's modest $16,160 recovery. The Court of Appeal's message is plain: a reasonable offer, even a small one, is a vital tool for managing litigation risk.

**Content:**

It is a fundamental strategic decision in litigation: to offer nothing, or to offer next to nothing, in hopes of forcing a plaintiff to abandon their claim or accept a low settlement offer rather than finance a trial and risk an adverse cost award. This “no offer” or “lowball” strategy may seem like a smart, albeit high-stakes gamble, but a growing body of Ontario jurisprudence makes it clear it may not be a gamble a prudent litigant should make. Courts are increasingly using their power to award costs to punish this approach, framing it not as a legitimate tactic, but as a form of unreasonable litigation conduct that undermines the very purpose of the justice system.

Of the recent decisions on this issue, none are more powerful than the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent ruling in *Barry v. Anantharajah*, [2025 ONCA 603](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca603/2025onca603.html).

## Barry v Anantharajah: When a $16,160 Award Costs You $300,000

In *Barry*, the defendant took the hardball approach and offered nothing prior to trial. The case involved a plaintiff who suffered injuries after being hit by the defendant’s car. The defendant initially offered to settle for a dismissal without costs, an offer that was made again prior to trial and was never increased to a monetary amount. The case proceeded to a three-week jury trial where the jury ultimately awarded the plaintiff damages that netted just $16,160.50 after accounting for a finding of contributory negligence and the statutory deductible.

Despite the plaintiff’s modest recovery, the trial judge ordered the defendant to pay $300,000 in legal costs, an amount that was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The trial judge was particularly critical of the defendant’s “aggressive litigation strategy” and “outdated view that mental health injuries are less worthy of compensation than physical injuries”. Ultimately, the trial judge concluded that the principle of proportionality, which typically links costs to the amount of the award, was not the determinative factor because it was the defendant’s conduct that made a costly trial necessary.

The Court of Appeal explained that it found no error in the trial judge’s reasoning that, where a defendant insurer “plays ‘hardball’ by offering zero prior to trial rather than even a modest sum… it leaves the plaintiff in a bind. Either she has to abandon her claim entirely and face a claim for costs, or take the case to trial at great cost.” The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge’s finding that the defendant was aware of evidence that would entitle the plaintiff to some damages and that its refusal to make an offer was therefore unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal’s analysis in upholding this decision was a powerful endorsement of the trial judge’s reasoning. The appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary costs award unless the trial judge made an error in principle or the award is so disproportionate as to be “plainly wrong”. In *Barry*, the Court of Appeal found no such error. They agreed with the trial judge’s assessment that the defendant’s litigation strategy was unreasonable and that it *was* fair and reasonable for the defendant to bear the cost consequences of that aggressive approach.

## Beyond Barry: Supporting Jurisprudence

The *Barry* decision is not a one-off anomaly. It is the most recent and powerful example of a principle that courts across Ontario have applied to discourage unreasonable litigation.

For example, in *Persampieri v. Hobbs*, [2018 ONSC 368](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc368/2018onsc368.html), the court had to decide costs in a personal injury action where the plaintiff was a successful litigant but had recovered a modest amount of damages. Similar to *Barry*, the defendants in this case had adopted a “no offer” position from the outset, forcing the matter to trial. The court emphasized that a costs award was not solely determined by the result of the trial, but was also a tool to encourage parties to settle and avoid the unnecessary use of court resources. Despite the relatively small net award of approximately $20,000, the court granted the plaintiff a cost award of over $200,000. The court found that the defendant’s hard ball approach was “uncompromising, and, (in the light of the jury verdict) unreasonable”. The judge explicitly rejected the defendant’s argument that proportionality should be the overriding factor, stating that to do so would “reward the uncompromising… unreasonable behaviour of the insurer” and would have a “denial of access to justice”.

The principles discussed in *Persampieri* and *Barry* are affirmed in Moustakis v. Agbuya, [2024 ONSC 4981](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc4981/2024onsc4981.html). In this case, the defendant admitted liability, but the matter proceeded to a 12-day jury trial on damages. Although the jury awarded a total of $330,000, statutory deductions resulted in the plaintiff only recovering $55,252.61. The defendant had made a settlement offer for a dismissal of the action without costs, effectively offering nothing. The judge found that the defendant’s hardball strategy forced the plaintiff, who had a “good but modest claim,” to go to trial. The court again ruled that proportionality must give way to the “important access to justice principles” that underlie Rule 49 and awarded $378,000 in costs and disbursements.

## Conclusion: A Costly Lesson in Litigation Strategy

In light of this clear and consistent jurisprudence, the strategy of making no offer, or a negligible offer, is fraught with risk. The courts are sending an unequivocal message that a party’s obligation is to act reasonably and in good faith to resolve disputes.

A failure to do so is not simply a mere negotiating ploy and can amount to a form of unreasonable conduct. For practitioners, this means advising clients that a reasonable offer, even if for a small amount, is a vital tool to manage litigation risk and to protect against the very real possibility that, even if you win by minimizing damages, you will lose on costs.

**Categories:** Personal Injury

**Tags:** Costs, Court of Appeal, Juries, Motor Vehicle Accident, Offer to Settle, Rules of Civil Procedure

---

### [Feeling the Heat: A Homeowner's Guide to Challenging an Insurer After a Fire](https://dcmlaw.ca/feeling-the-heat-a-homeowners-guide-to-challenging-an-insurer-after-a-fire/)

**Published:** September 23, 2025
**Author:** Peter Reinitzer

**Excerpt:** Home insurance premiums are climbing across Ontario, hitting cottage-country communities like Huntsville especially hard, as extreme weather and wildfire risk reshape the insurance landscape. The Insurance Bureau of Canada reported over $8 billion in catastrophic losses in 2024. For homeowners facing a denied or underpaid fire claim, this is a guide to scrutinizing the denial and pushing back.

**Content:**

## Your Burning Question: Why Are Insurance Premiums So High?

Homeowners across Ontario are feeling the financial strain as home insurance premiums continue their steady climb. Recent data illustrates this trend, revealing that the average cost of home insurance in the province has surged, significantly outpacing the [general rate of inflation](https://www.mychoice.ca/blog/ontario-home-insurance-market-overview-2025/). This reality is hitting particularly hard in northern communities in the province, including cottage country locales like Huntsville, where residents are seeing [substantial increases in their yearly insurance costs](https://www.mychoice.ca/blog/ontario-home-insurance-market-overview-2025/).

This isn’t just an inconvenience; it’s a signal of a fundamental shift in the landscape of risk. The driving force behind these rising costs is the escalating frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including the growing threat of wildfires, which is creating a more challenging environment for homeowners when they need their insurance the most.[](https://dcmlaw.ca/feeling-the-heat-a-homeowners-guide-to-challenging-an-insurer-after-a-fire/#_ednref1)

## A Tinderbox Climate

The connection between our changing climate and the spike in insurance claims is now impossible to ignore. The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) reports that in 2024 alone, [insured losses from catastrophic events reached over $8 billion](https://www.ibc.ca/news-insights/news/2024-shatters-record-for-costliest-year-for-severe-weather-related-losses-in-canadian-history-at-8-5-billion), the worst years on record. Wildfires are a major driver of these costs, with the Jasper wildfire amounting to almost [$1.3 billion in losses](https://www.ibc.ca/news-insights/news/insured-losses-from-jasper-wildfire-rise-to-just-under-1-3-billion). These massive payouts directly contribute to the premium hikes seen in forested communities across Ontario, and [risks associated with wildfires are only increasing](https://www.ibc.ca/news-insights/news/canada-must-shield-against-growing-wildfire-risk-to-avoid-fate-of-california).

Data from the Insurance Bureau of Canada confirms this trend. In 2019 and 2020, insurance payouts for catastrophic weather events reached $1 billion. This amount doubled to $2 billion in 2021, [and jumped to $8 billion by 2024](https://www.ibc.ca/news-insights/in-focus/canadian-governments-need-to-emphasize-climate-defence-over-offence-for-the-rest-of-this-decade). This data confirms that the [rising losses](https://www.ibc.ca/news-insights/news/new-data-shows-2024-was-the-costliest-year-for-commercial-insurance-losses-in-nearly-a-decade) and associated payouts are placing increased upward pressure on insurance premiums.[](https://dcmlaw.ca/feeling-the-heat-a-homeowners-guide-to-challenging-an-insurer-after-a-fire/#_ednref1)

## The Industry’s Response: A More Difficult Path for Homeowners

For homeowners who suffer a fire loss, this new reality can make the path to recovery far more challenging. This is where the value of an experienced advocate becomes clear.

With financial stakes higher than ever, insurance companies and their adjusters apply intense scrutiny to fire loss claims. Every detail is examined, from the cause of the fire to the valuation of every lost item. This can lead to a complex and often adversarial process, where homeowners feel pressured to accept low settlements or face outright denials.

In response to the risk, [insurers are making policies more complex](https://canadianunderwriter.ca/news/claims/3-ways-canadian-pc-insurers-can-better-protect-against-natcat-risk/). In high-risk areas, they may offer reduced coverage, introduce new exclusions, or include higher, specific deductibles for fire damage. The fine print in these lengthy documents can be difficult to understand, and a misinterpretation can be costly.

Insurers are increasingly placing the onus of risk mitigation on homeowners, often referencing programs like “[FireSmart](https://www.ibc.ca/news-insights/news/one-year-after-jasper-wildfire-rebuilding-continues-amid-ongoing-challenges)“. While proactive measures are wise, in the event of a claim, an insurer might argue that a homeowner’s failure to take certain steps contributed to the loss, using it as leverage to reduce a payout.[](https://dcmlaw.ca/feeling-the-heat-a-homeowners-guide-to-challenging-an-insurer-after-a-fire/#_ednref1)

## Why You Need an Advocate in Your Corner

After the trauma of a fire, navigating a complex insurance claim is the last thing you should have to do alone. The insurance company has a team of experts, adjusters, and lawyers working to protect its financial interests. An insurance litigation lawyer works for you.

Retaining legal counsel levels the playing field. An experienced lawyer can:

- *Manage the Entire Claims Process*: They take the burden off your shoulders, handling all communication with the insurer, managing the extensive paperwork, and meeting critical deadlines. This allows you to focus on your family and rebuild your life.
- *Ensure a Full and Fair Valuation*: A lawyer will work with independent experts to accurately assess the full scope of your losses, from the cost of rebuilding your home to replacing every item inside. This prevents the insurer from undervaluing your claim.
- *Navigate Complex Policy Language*: They will conduct a thorough review of your policy to ensure you receive every benefit you are entitled to, fighting back against any attempts by the insurer to misinterpret or misapply the policy’s terms.
- *Challenge Unfair Denials*: If your claim is unfairly delayed, disputed, or denied, a lawyer has the expertise and resources to challenge the insurer’s decision and, if necessary, commence litigation to secure the settlement you deserve.

In this new era of heightened risk and increased scrutiny, an insurance litigation lawyer is not a luxury—it is an essential partner in ensuring you can recover and rebuild after a devastating fire loss. If you are facing a fire loss, [contact](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) one of Davidson Cahill Morrisson’s lawyers to see how we can help you navigate the claims process.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Exclusions, Fire Loss, Property Loss

---

### [Supporting the 2025 Lakeridge Health Foundation’s Golf Classic](https://dcmlaw.ca/supporting-the-2025-lakeridge-health-foundations-golf-classic/)

**Published:** September 24, 2025
**Author:** Ron Strike

**Excerpt:** Ron Strike was proud to support the Lakeridge Health Foundation as a Bogey Partner at its 2025 Golf Classic, held July 14 at Coppingwood Golf Club. The event drew 124 golfers and raised more than $185,000 for advanced technology and care at the Oshawa and Whitby hospitals serving Durham Region.

**Content:**

## Lakeridge Health Foundation Golf Classic

It was my honour and privilege to help support [Lakeridge Health Foundation](https://lhfoundation.ca/) as a Bogey Partner to their 2025 Golf Classic at [Coppingwood Golf Club](https://coppinwood.com/) on July 14, 2025.

The event hosted 124 golfers teeing off in support of exceptional health care throughout Durham Region. With everyone chipping in, the Golf Classic raised over $185,000.

Lakeridge Health Foundation and its supporters are funding resources and advanced technologies for the expert staff in their Oshawa and Whitby Hospitals. Since 2010, the Golf Classic has helped fund:

- Durham Region’s first PET-CT scanner
- A da Vinci Surgical Robot, making cancer surgeries safer and faster
- The redevelopment of their Interventional Radiology Department
- Dialysis Machines
- And much more

I am very much looking forward to continuing my support our community hospital next year.

![Ron Strike at the 2025 Lakeridge Health Foundation Golf Classic](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/ron-strike-lakeridge-health-foundation-golf-classic-2025-2.jpg)

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Community Involvement

---

### [Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP Earns 2026 Best Law Firm Ranking for Excellence in Multiple Practice Areas](https://dcmlaw.ca/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp-earns-2026-best-law-firm-ranking-for-excellence-in-multiple-practice-areas/)

**Published:** October 30, 2025
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP has again been included in the Best Law Firms rankings for 2026, earning National and Regional Tier 1 recognition. The rankings draw on client and peer evaluations and require at least one lawyer recognized in The Best Lawyers in Canada. The firm was commended for its work in insurance law, medical negligence, and personal injury litigation.

**Content:**

[Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/) is proud to announce its repeated inclusion in the prestigious “[Best Law Firms](https://www.bestlawyers.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/104420/CA)” rankings for 2026. The firm has once again achieved National and Regional Tier 1 rankings, underscoring its position as a leader in the Canadian legal landscape. This recognition highlights the firm’s consistent performance and deep expertise across several complex practice areas.

The “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes client and lawyer evaluations, peer reviews from leading lawyers, and analysis of additional information provided by the law firms themselves. Achieving a tiered ranking signifies a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise. For a firm to be eligible, it must have at least one lawyer recognized in the current edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada, an honor several of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP’s partners have consistently received.

This year, the firm was specifically commended for its outstanding work in [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#insurance-law), [Medical Negligence](https://dcmlaw.ca/medical-malpractice-lawyers/), and [Personal Injury Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/personal-injury-lawyers/). In the field of Personal Injury Litigation, Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP has secured numerous high-value settlements and trial verdicts on behalf of clients facing life-altering injuries, demonstrating empathy, tenacity, and a deep understanding of tort law. Their litigators have successfully resolved cases involving catastrophic injury, wrongful death, and complex liability disputes.

In Medical Negligence, the firm is recognized for successfully advancing complex claims against physicians, hospitals and other healthcare professionals. Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP has acted as lead counsel in precedent-setting cases in medical malpractice lawsuits ranging from surgical error claims to delayed diagnosis to obstetrical birth injuries. Their team combines in-depth legal expertise with a meticulous analysis of medical evidence, leading to numerous successful outcomes for patients harmed by medical malpractice.

Within Insurance Law, the firm’s lawyers are widely respected for their comprehensive representation of both insurers and policyholders. Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP regularly advises on coverage disputes, defends institutional clients, and advises on title insurance claims for homeowners. Their strategic negotiation skills and ability to manage complex, multi-party cases have resulted in substantial cost savings and decisive courtroom victories for their clients. The continued national and regional recognition in these areas is a testament to the firm’s innovative legal strategies, unwavering commitment to client service, and proven ability to deliver positive outcomes in the most challenging legal environments.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP’s [repeated](https://dcmlaw.ca/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp-ranked-by-best-law-firms-canada-in-2025/) top-tier rankings demonstrate its unwavering commitment to client advocacy and legal excellence. The firm has built a formidable reputation for providing exceptional counsel and achieving favorable outcomes for its clients, which includes large institutional clients as well as individuals. This honor serves as a testament to the trust the firm has earned from both its clients and its peers within the legal community.

## About Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

![The Lawyers of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/2025-candid-all-lawyers-boardroom-1920x1080-5.jpg)Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is a premier litigation firm with a long-standing history of providing expert legal services. The firm specializes in civil litigation, with a focus on insurance law, medical malpractice, personal injury litigation, appellate advocacy and municipal law. With a team of highly skilled lawyers, including [Certified Specialists in Civil Litigation](https://lso.ca/lawyers/about-your-licence/manage-your-licence/certified-specialists), the firm is dedicated to delivering strategic, effective, and client-focused representation.

## Best Law Firms – Canada Region (2026 Edition) – Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**National Tier 1**

- - Insurance Law
    - Personal Injury Litigation

**National Tier 2**

- - Medical Negligence

**Regional Tier 1**

- Greater Ontario 
    - Insurance Law
- Toronto 
    - Insurance Law
    - Medical Negligence
    - Personal Injury Litigation

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Best Law Firm

---

### [Flooded Again? Why Your Insurance Denial Might Be a Clue to a Deeper Problem](https://dcmlaw.ca/flooded-again-why-your-insurance-denial-might-be-a-clue-to-a-deeper-problem/)

**Published:** October 28, 2025
**Author:** Peter Reinitzer

**Excerpt:** A property owner suffers a devastating flood, makes the panicked call to their insurer, and is told the policy does not cover "overland flooding," or that the sewer-backup limit falls far short of the repair bill. For many that is the end of the road. But a denial can be a clue that the real problem is not the rain at all, but a construction defect in how the home was built, and that opens a very different path to recovery.

**Content:**

The news that a Toronto shelter was facing $250,000 in damages after heavy rain—and that their insurance provider would likely not cover the cost—is a nightmare scenario for any property owner. According to [the recent CTV article](https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/local/article/toronto-womens-shelter-scrambling-to-raise-funds-after-water-leak-reveals-250k-in-building-damages/), the denial appears to hinge on the fact that the water “came from an outside source.”

This is a story I see often in my practice. A property owner suffers a devastating flood. They make the panicked call to their insurance company, only to be told that their policy doesn’t cover “overland flooding.” Or, they have a “sewer backup” endorsement, but the $25,000 limit doesn’t cover the cost of the remediation.

For many, this is the end of the road. They absorb the financial loss, pay for a patch-up job, and pray it doesn’t happen again.

But what if the insurance denial is a clue that the real problem isn’t just the rain, but how your home was built? As a construction negligence litigation lawyer, I often see that the water is just a symptom. The disease is a construction defect.

## The Insurance Trap: What Your Policy Really Covers

When your basement floods, you’re not thinking about how the water got in; you’re thinking about how to get it out. But for your insurance company, the “how” is everything.

Insurance policies are notoriously specific. A standard policy might cover sudden, accidental water damage, like a burst pipe. However, they frequently exclude damage from ice buildup or “overland flooding”—water seeping in from an outside source.

Even when a policy applies, coverage limits are often shockingly low. Worse, your policy is designed to cover the consequential damage—the ruined carpets, the wet drywall, the damaged furniture. It is not designed to pay for the root cause, such as excavating your foundation, re-grading your property, or fixing the foundation cracks.

That fix is your responsibility, leaving your home vulnerable to the next storm unless you pay for professionals to identify and fix the problem.

## The Real Culprit: When a “Flood” is Actually “Construction Negligence”

The CTV article noted that the shelter “appears to have long-standing issues with grading and waterproofing.” This is the key. The building isn’t just a passive victim of the weather; it is failing in its primary duty to keep the elements out.

This is the core of a construction negligence claim. In Ontario, builders, contractors, designers, and municipal inspectors are required to adhere to the Ontario Building Code and industry standards of care. When they fail, causing you financial loss, they can be held liable.

Common construction defects that lead to water intrusion include:

- *Improper Grading*: The ground slopes towards your foundation instead of away from it.
- *Failed Waterproofing*: The waterproof membrane on your foundation was improperly installed, is the wrong material, or was damaged.
- *Foundation Cracks*: Cracks that were not properly repaired, allowing a clear path for water.
- *Failed Weeping Tiles*: The perimeter drain system is crushed, clogged, or was never installed correctly.
- *Window and Door Errors*: Improper flashing and sealing around windows, window wells, and doors.

Depending on the circumstances, a claim may be brought against the original builder, designers, or the municipality responsible for inspecting construction.

## What If You’re Not the Original Owner?

You may still have a claim against the original builder, the municipality (for negligent inspection), or the previous owner. A seller must disclose any “latent defect” they are aware of, meaning a hidden, significant flaw not discoverable on a routine inspection. If you can prove the prior owners knew about the flooding and actively concealed it (e.g. by painting over water-damaged framing or mould), or lied on a Seller Property Information Sheet, you may be able to hold them responsible.

## The Right Time to Call: After Emergency Cleanup, Before Permanent Repairs

After a flood, your priority is safety and mitigating immediate damage. You should notify your insurer who will likely call an emergency restoration company to pump out water and begin professional drying. This is critical to prevent mould and stop the damage from spreading.

However, once this emergency “rip-out” and “dry-out” phase is under control, a crucial decision point arrives. Before you hire a contractor to start the permanent, structural repairs—like re-grading, excavating the foundation, or even just putting up new drywall—your next call should be to an experienced construction litigation lawyer.

Here’s why this timing is so important:

Restoration crews remove wet materials, often exposing the very defect that caused the flood—a foundation crack, a failed seal, or bad waterproofing. This critical evidence is often exposed at this exact moment. Before a contractor covers it up, a lawyer will retain a forensic engineer to inspect and document the source of the failure. This “cause and origin” report is the foundation of your case. Repairing the defect before this inspection can destroy the proof you need.

A restoration company dries your house. A general contractor may just patch it up. A lawyer, working with an engineer, ensures you get a permanent solution based on a proper diagnosis, not a cosmetic repair that will fail again.

A key benefit of hiring a lawyer is our roster of trusted professionals. We don’t just sue; we help clients solve complex problems. We will connect you with a forensic engineer to find the defect and then, based on their report, find specialized contractors to properly remedy it.

A major flood is devastating. Once the panic subsides and your home is dry but not rebuilt, a strategic pause for legal advice can mean the difference between a temporary patch and a permanent solution—and the difference between you paying for it, or the people who caused the problem.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Construction Negligence, Exclusions, Flood, Property Loss

---

### [Shaw Estate v. Handler - Court of Appeal Dismisses ER Doctor's Appeal of Judgment Against Him Relating to Death of 34-Year Old Mother of 4](https://dcmlaw.ca/shaw-estate-v-handler-court-of-appeal-dismisses-er-doctors-appeal-of-judgment-against-him-relating-to-death-of-34-year-old-mother-of-4/)

**Published:** December 16, 2025
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Excerpt:** Elisha Shaw was 34 and a mother of four when she died after being discharged from an emergency department with an undiagnosed internal hernia. After a 12-day trial, the Ontario Superior Court found the emergency physician negligent. In Shaw Estate v Handler, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has now dismissed his appeal and upheld that finding, bringing the family a measure of finality nearly a decade on.

**Content:**

I was retained by Merton Thompson (“Merton”) in 2016. His young wife Elisha Shaw (“Elisha”), mother to his 4 children, had died after being discharged from the emergency department. Merton came to me looking for answers and accountability.

A Statement of Claim was issued in 2017 alleging negligence against several healthcare professionals. After going through all the requisite steps required of a civil action in Ontario, the case went to trial over 12 days in January, 2023 in Brampton, Ontario. The only defendant remaining by that time was the emergency medicine physician, Dr. Jeffrey Handler (“Dr. Handler”).

On September 6, 2023, the Honourable Mr. Justice William LeMay of the [Ontario Superior Court of Justice](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc5042/2023onsc5042.html) found Dr. Handler negligent in his care of Elisha, which resulted in her death. A detailed summary of the trial decision [can be found here](https://paulcahill.ca/paul-cahill-wins-medical-malpractice-trial-for-brampton-family/).

Dr. Handler appealed the judgment against him to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Today, the appellate court released its decision in [*Shaw Estate v. Handler*](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/shaw-estate-v-handler-2025-ONCA-868.pdf) dismissing Dr. Handler’s appeal and upholding the finding of medical malpractice. I am overjoyed that Merton and his family may now have some finality from Elisha’s tragic passing just over 10 years ago today.

I would like to specifically thank my partner, [Chris Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/), who took the lead on the appeal. His appellate advocacy skills are second to none and played an integral role in securing the successful outcome of this case. I would also like to thank my associate, [Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/), who played a vital role at trial helping to secure the judgment that became the subject of his appeal.

## Overview

This was an appeal of a medical malpractice lawsuit concerning the delayed diagnosis of an internal hernia, which led to the death of Elisha, a 34-year-old woman and mother of 4 young children. ​The appeal focused on the trial judge’s findings regarding liability, specifically whether Dr. Handler breached the standard of care and caused her death. ​

Elisha visited [Brampton Civic Hospital](https://www.williamoslerhs.ca/en/visiting-us/brampton-civic-hospital.aspx) on November 16, 2015, with severe abdominal pain. ​ Dr. Handler discharged her the next morning after receiving an initial CT scan report indicating no abnormalities. ​However, shortly after her discharge, another radiologist informed Dr. Handler that the CT scan showed signs of a potential hernia. ​Dr. Handler did not contact Elisha or arrange for her return to the hospital. ​Elisha returned to the hospital by ambulance on November 18, underwent surgery for herniated and [ischemic bowel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestinal_ischemia) tissue, and tragically passed away on November 25.

The trial judge found that Dr. Handler breached the standard of care by failing to act on the updated CT scan results and concluded that this negligence caused Elisha’s death. ​Dr. Handler appealed, arguing errors in the trial judge’s findings on the standard of care and causation. ​The Court of Appeal [dismissed the appeal](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/shaw-estate-v-handler-2025-ONCA-868.pdf), ruling that the trial judge’s findings were sound and supported by evidence. ​

## Facts

Elisha had undergone [bariatric surgery](https://www.ontariobariatricnetwork.ca/our-programs/surgical-program) in 2012. ​A known risk of this surgery is the potential for internal hernias due to shifting and tangling of the intestines. ​Elisha experienced ongoing abdominal pain and nausea after her surgery and had been prescribed opioids for pain management. ​A 2014 CT scan suggested a possible internal hernia, but a recommended diagnostic laparoscopy was never performed. ​

On November 16, 2015, Elisha visited the emergency department at Brampton Civic Hospital, reporting severe abdominal pain rated “10/10.” ​ Dr. Handler, the on-duty emergency medicine physician, ordered blood work and a CT scan. ​The initial radiologist reported the scan as normal, and Dr. Handler discharged Elisha the next morning, believing her pain had decreased. ​He advised her to schedule an expedited appointment with her bariatric surgeon, which she did for the following week. ​

Shortly after her discharge, another radiologist reviewed the CT scan and informed Dr. Handler that it showed twisting of mesenteric vessels, which could indicate a hernia. ​Dr. Handler did not contact Elisha or arrange for her return to the hospital. ​On November 18, Elisha returned to the hospital by ambulance due to worsening pain. ​She underwent surgery that evening, which revealed herniated and ischemic bowel tissue. ​Despite further surgeries, her condition deteriorated, and she passed away on November 25, 2015.

## The Expert Evidence

The following is a summary of the the expert testimony presented at trial regarding standard of care and causation.

1. **Standard of Care Experts**: 
    - [**Dr. Alan Drummond**](https://x.com/alandrummond2) (plaintiffs’ expert): Testified that Dr. Handler breached the standard of care by discharging Elisha while her pain was uncontrolled and by failing to act on the updated CT scan results. ​He emphasized that patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain and a history of bariatric surgery should not be sent home, especially with CT scan findings suggesting a hernia. ​
    - [**Dr. Amit Shah**](https://www.schulich.uwo.ca/emergency_medicine/people/faculty_bios/Dr%20Amit%20Shah.html) (defence expert): Argued that discharging Elisha was reasonable as her symptoms had reportedly improved, and it was common practice to send patients home for observation. ​He believed there was no need to call Elisha back to the hospital after receiving the updated CT scan results. ​
2. **Causation Experts**: 
    - [**Dr. Ron Holliday**](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ronald-Holliday) (plaintiffs’ expert): Testified that a surgical consultation on November 17 would have led to a laparoscopic exploration, identifying and repairing the hernia before it caused ischemia and necrosis. ​He concluded that Elisha would have likely survived with timely surgery. ​
    - [**Dr. Timothy Jackson**](https://surgery.utoronto.ca/faculty/timothy-jackson) (defence expert): Disagreed, arguing that a surgeon might have deferred surgery to Elisha’s bariatric specialist and that her worsening condition on November 18 was due to a separate event. ​

The trial judge admitted all expert evidence but limited the scope of some testimony. ​Ultimately, the judge accepted the plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions over the defence experts, concluding that Dr. Handler breached the standard of care and caused Elisha’s death. ​

## Findings on the Standard of Care

The Court of Appeal summarized the trial judge’s findings that Dr. Handler breached the standard of care in his treatment of Elisha as follows:

1. **Discharge Decision**: The trial judge found that Dr. Handler’s decision to discharge Elisha on the morning of November 17, 2015, was not negligent, as he reasonably believed her CT scan results were normal and her pain had decreased. ​This decision was considered a matter of clinical judgment. ​
2. **Failure to Act on Updated CT Scan Results**: The trial judge determined that Dr. Handler breached the standard of care when he failed to contact Elisha or have her return to the hospital after receiving updated CT scan results from the staff radiologist. ​These results indicated twisting of mesenteric vessels, which suggested a possible hernia which are a known risk for patients with a history of bariatric surgery. ​The trial judge concluded that Dr. Handler should have called Elisha back to the hospital and referred her to an on-call surgeon for an emergency consultation. ​

Ultimately, the trial judge concluded that Dr. Handler’s failure to act on the updated CT scan results was a breach of the standard of care.

## Findings of Causation

The Court of Appeal summarized the trial judge’s determination that Dr. Handler’s breach of the standard of care caused Elisha’s death.

1. **Cause of Death**: The trial judge found that Elisha’s death resulted from complications following bowel necrosis caused by hernias and ischemia. ​This was undisputed. ​
2. **What Would Have Happened Without the Breach**: The judge concluded that if Dr. Handler had contacted Elisha after receiving the updated CT scan results on November 17, she would have returned to the hospital, undergone a surgical consultation, and received a laparoscopic exploration that same day. ​ This would have identified and repaired the hernia before it progressed to ischemia and necrosis. ​
3. **Outcome of Timely Surgery**: The judge determined that Elisha’s condition on November 17 had not yet progressed to necrosis, and her bowels were healthy enough to recover fully with timely intervention. ​Therefore, the judge concluded that Elisha’s death would have been avoided if Dr. Handler had acted in accordance with the standard of care. ​

The trial judge rejected the defence expert’s argument that Elisha’s worsening condition on November 18 was due to a separate event and accepted the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion that her condition had progressively worsened since November 17. The judge found that Dr. Handler’s negligence directly caused Elisha’s death. ​

## Issues

Dr. Handler raised two issues on appeal. He asserted that:

1. The trial judge erred in his articulation of the standard of care and identified a standard of care that was unsupported by the evidence at trial; and
2. The trial judge erred in his causation analysis by failing to make the necessary factual findings to determine whether Elisha would have lived, had the appellant met the standard of care.

## Analysis

### The Trial Judge Did Not Err in His Standard of Care Analysis

The Court of Appeal rejected Dr. Handler’s arguments that the trial judge erred in finding a breach of the standard of care for the following reasons.​

1. **Standard of Care Requirements**: The trial judge determined that Dr. Handler breached the standard of care by failing to contact Elisha after receiving updated CT scan results indicating a possible hernia. ​The judge concluded that Dr. Handler should have called Elisha back to the hospital for an urgent surgical consultation. ​
2. **Expert Evidence**: The trial judge relied on the plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Drummond, who testified that the standard of care required contacting Elisha and arranging a surgical consultation due to her history of bariatric surgery and the concerning CT scan findings. ​Dr. Drummond emphasized the urgency of the situation, as delaying diagnosis could lead to catastrophic outcomes. ​
3. **Defence Arguments Rejected**: The judge rejected the defence expert’s opinion that discharging Elisha was reasonable and that follow-up with her bariatric surgeon was sufficient. ​The judge found that Dr. Shah’s opinion was based on the incorrect assumption that Elisha’s pain had improved, which was contradicted by evidence. ​
4. **Urgency of Surgical Consultation**: The judge concluded that the new CT scan information required immediate action, as Elisha’s condition was evolving and urgent. ​The trial judge reasonably inferred that Elisha would have returned to the hospital if contacted and would have undergone a surgical consultation. ​

The trial judge’s findings on the standard of care were deemed analytically sound, supported by evidence, and consistent with expert testimony. ​There was no reversible error in his analysis. ​

### The Trial Judge Made Sufficient Findings to Determine Causation

The Court of Appeal similarly rejected Dr. Handler’s arguments that the trial judge erred in his analysis of causation. ​

1. **Causation Framework**: The judge followed the required steps to determine causation: (a) identifying the cause of Elisha’s death, (b) assessing what would have happened if Dr. Handler had met the standard of care, and (c) deciding if Elisha’s death would have been avoided on a balance of probabilities. ​
2. **Cause of Death**: The judge found that Elisha’s death was caused by complications from bowel necrosis, which stemmed from hernias and ischemia. ​This was undisputed. ​
3. **Impact of the Breach**: The judge concluded that if Dr. Handler had contacted Elisha on November 17, she would have returned to the hospital, undergone a surgical consultation, and received laparoscopic surgery that day. ​This would have identified and repaired the hernia before it progressed to ischemia and necrosis. ​
4. **Window of Opportunity**: The judge determined that Elisha’s condition had not yet progressed to necrosis on November 17, and timely surgery would have reversed her condition without long-term complications. ​The judge rejected the defence expert’s claim that Elisha’s worsening condition on November 18 was due to a separate event, finding instead that her condition had progressively worsened since November 17. ​
5. **Timing of Surgery**: The judge reasonably inferred that Elisha would have returned to the hospital promptly if contacted and would have undergone surgery within a few hours of a surgical consultation. ​The delay in surgery on November 18 was attributed to her need for stabilization, which would not have been necessary on November 17.

The trial judge’s findings on causation were detailed, supported by evidence, and addressed all key issues. ​There was no reversible error in his analysis. ​

## Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from the *Shaw Estate v. Handler* decision are:

1. **Standard of Care in Medical Malpractice**: The court emphasized that the standard of care in medical malpractice cases is determined by what a reasonable physician would have done under the circumstances. ​Expert evidence plays a critical role in establishing whether the standard of care was met. ​
2. **Duty to Act on New Information**: The court found that Dr. Handler breached the standard of care by failing to act on updated CT scan results that indicated a possible hernia. ​The decision highlights the importance of promptly addressing new clinical information, especially in cases involving potentially life-threatening conditions. ​
3. **Urgency in Medical Situations**: The court stressed that patients with a history of bariatric surgery and symptoms of severe abdominal pain require urgent attention, as delays in diagnosis and treatment can lead to catastrophic outcomes. ​
4. **Causation in Delayed Diagnosis Cases**: The court applied the “but for” test to determine causation, concluding that Elisha’s death would have been avoided if Dr. Handler had contacted her and arranged for surgery on November 17. ​The decision underscores the need for courts to assess what would have likely happened if the standard of care had been met. ​
5. **Expert Testimony and Evidence**: The trial judge carefully weighed competing expert opinions and found the plaintiffs’ experts more credible based on the specific facts of the case. ​This demonstrates the importance of presenting clear, fact-based expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. ​
6. **Liability and Damages**: Dr. Handler was found liable for negligence causing Elisha’s death, and the plaintiffs were awarded over $1.6 million in damages and $675,000 in costs. ​ This highlights the significant financial consequences of medical negligence. ​
7. **Appeal Dismissed**: The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings, concluding that his analysis of both the standard of care and causation was thorough, supported by evidence, and free of reversible error. ​This reinforces the principle that appellate courts will defer to trial judges on factual findings unless clear errors are demonstrated.

## Conclusion

I am proud to have represented Merton and his family along with my colleagues [Chris Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/) and [Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/) who provided invaluable support through the trial and appeal.

**Categories:** Medical Malpractice

**Tags:** Appeal, Causation, Court of Appeal, Delayed Diagnosis, Emergency Room, Standard of Care

---

### [No Damages Awarded for “The Building that Blew Up”: $16 Million Damages Claim Dismissed After 13-Years of Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/no-damages-awarded-for-the-building-that-blew-up-16-million-damages-claim-dismissed-after-13-years-of-litigation/)

**Published:** November 10, 2025
**Author:** Margaret Klassen

**Excerpt:** Liability for the 2010 laundry-room gas explosion was admitted, so the only question at trial was damages, and the plaintiffs sought more than $16 million. After a four-week trial and nearly 13 years of litigation, Justice Schabas of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the action entirely, finding the plaintiffs had not proven the explosion caused their claimed losses. Christopher Morrison and Margaret Klassen acted for the fourth parties.

**Content:**

On October 7, 2025, the Justice Schabas of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released the long-awaited decision in [*Avedian et al v Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc*.](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc5700/2025onsc5700.html), a case that spanned nearly 13 years and arose from a 2010 explosion in the laundry room of a high-rise apartment building.

Although liability for the explosion had been admitted, the matter proceeded to trial on the sole issue of damages, with the Plaintiffs seeking over $16 million in alleged economic loss. After a four-week trial, Justice Schabas dismissed the action in its entirety, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their losses were caused by the explosion.

At trial, [Christopher Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/) and [Margaret Klassen](https://dcmlaw.ca/margaret-klassen/) were counsel for the fourth parties, working alongside a coordinated defence team that included James Norton for the defendants and Kirk Boggs and Michael Dunk for the third parties. This result is a reflection of the incredible teamwork and collaboration among counsel throughout the case and at trial.

## The Explosion and the Claim

On September 14, 2010, a gas explosion occurred in the laundry room of an apartment building at 399 Markham Road in Scarborough only a few weeks after it was acquired by 1815212 Ontario Inc. (1815). The individual plaintiffs were the sole shareholders of 1815 through their respective personal holding companies.

The fire was quickly extinguished, with damages largely confined to the laundry room and adjacent areas. Repairs were completed within 10 months and paid for by insurance, which also compensated 1815 for business interruption and lost income.

Despite this, the plaintiffs claimed that the explosion created a stigma that followed the building for years, with people in the community referring to it as “the building that blew up”. They alleged that this led to substantial economic losses, including:

- Lost rental income from high vacancies;
- Inability to increase rents or charge for parking and storage;
- Inability to construct 17 additional apartment units;
- An expedited elevator modernization project costing $400,000;
- Increased insurance premiums; and
- A $10 million alleged diminution in value upon the 2015 sale of the building.

In 2015, the plaintiffs sold the building for $33.5 million, nearly double their purchase price five years earlier. As part of the transaction, 1815 assigned its right to sue to its former shareholders, who then continued the lawsuit as plaintiffs.

## A “Tortuous” Procedural History

As Justice Pepall of the Court of Appeal succinctly put it – this case has an “extensive and tortuous history, with multiple interlocutory motions and three separate trips to the Court of Appeal.

In 2022, D. Wilson J., as she then was, denied the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their claim to assert personal shareholder losses and to increase damages from $7.5 million to $57.5 million, with reasons set out in *Avedian v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.,* [2022 ONSC 3343](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc3343/2022onsc3343.html). Wilson J. emphasized the inexcusable delay and prejudice to the defending parties, noting that the plaintiffs were not examined on the individual claims during discoveries in 2017 as the purchase agreement was not disclosed until 2019. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision in *Avedian v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc*., [2023 ONCA 289](https://canlii.ca/t/jwv55).

Seemingly undeterred, the plaintiffs later served an expert report advancing a new “reinvestment theory” that but for the explosion, they would have used the building’s equity to purchase an additional building, resulting in a loss of around $60 million. The defending parties brought a motion for directions before Wilson J., which was heard alongside two other motions brought by the plaintiffs, one to strike the defending parties pleadings and another to disqualify Wilson J. for bias.

The plaintiffs’ motions were dismissed for being devoid of merit. On the motion for directions, Justice Wilson held that the “reinvestment theory” could not be pursued at trial, emphasizing trial fairness and prejudice to the defending parties as the limitation period for asserting new claims had long passed ([2024 ONSC 2376](https://canlii.ca/t/k4gg6), leave to appeal denied).

## Disclosure Failures

Despite having legal counsel since the outset, the plaintiffs failed to preserve or produce key documents to support their claims, and documents that were produced late or that the defending parties obtained, undermined the plaintiffs’ claims and were inconsistent with any connection to the explosion.

The most striking example relates to the plaintiffs’ claim that the explosion caused damage to the elevators. Other claims hinged on this issue such as tenants leaving due to the lack of elevators. However, the plaintiffs did not produce one single document relating to the elevators – not one single report, letter, email, photograph, handwritten note, invoice, or any document of any kind that stated, suggested, or inferred that the elevators were damaged by the explosion, or that mentioned them at all.

That is, until one week prior to trial when the plaintiffs finally produced the elevator modernization contract after the defending parties saw a reference to the contract in one of the plaintiffs’’ experts reports prepared in 2018. Unsurprisingly, and as discussed in the credibility section below, the contract entirely contradicted the plaintiffs’ assertions at trial.

Of equal concern to Justice Schabas was that when the plaintiffs did produce records, they produced the records selectively or produced only portions. For example, the plaintiffs only produced the first page of their insurance renewal documents, showing an increase in premium but not a breakdown of coverage. When confronted with the full policies during cross-examination by Chris Morrison, the plaintiff, Bedros Avedian, acknowledged that the replacement cost of the building increased from $21.2 million in 2010 to $55.6 million the following year as a result of an appraisal required following acquisition.

Justice Schabas ultimately held that the plaintiffs’ failure to gather and present evidence supporting their assertions led to the inference that there was no such evidence.

## Credibility: “Saying It Is So Does Not Make it So”

Justice Schabas devoted extensive portions of his reasons to credibility, concluding that much of the plaintiffs’ evidence was neither reliable nor credible.

The plaintiffs’ case rested largely on the testimony of the plaintiff, Bedros Avedian, the principal of Orion Group, which managed the building. Over the course of nearly three days of cross-examination, Chris Morrison meticulously went through each of Avedian’s assertions, exposing where they lacked any evidentiary foundation (which was many), highlighting selective disclosure, and contradictions in his testimony. This proved successful as it revealed Avedian’s testimony to be “largely self-serving and unreliable” and “evasive or non-responsive” when confronted with contradictory evidence.

The clearest example brings us back to the elevator modernization contract. Avedian asserted that although they planned to modernize the elevators upon acquisition, the work was to be deferred for three years, but due to alleged damage from the explosion, it had to be advanced as soon as possible. He also claimed that the lack of working elevators contributed to tenant discontent and consequently, an increase in vacancies and the inability to charge for parking and storage or otherwise increase the rent.

The contract, however, signed one week before the fire, expressly contemplated the modernization work was to be performed in January 2011, not three years later, and the schedule was altered by only one month following the explosion. He was unable to explain why the contract was produced to an expert several years ago but not to the defence. Justice Schabas described Avedian’s evidence as “demonstrably false”, having “concealed \[the contract\] until they could not avoid it, just prior to trial. If there had been any damage to the elevators it would have been documented, and evidence would have been called to describe it.”

Ultimately, Justice Schabas found Avedian’s testimony to be based primarily on hearsay and consisted of assertions that were “either unsupported or contradicted by contemporaneous documents”.

The Plaintiffs called other fact witnesses, but their evidence was subject to similar issues:

- **Jarrett, a sales employee of the elevator company, ThyssenKrupp:** Provided testimony in support of damage to the elevator despite not having seen any damage, not being involved in any alleged repairs, and only attending at the building one time. Justice Schabas found Mr. Jarrett to be an advocate for the plaintiffs and gave no weight to his evidence.
- **Melino,** operations manager for Orion Group: His testimony consisted of assertions that the superintendent (who did not testify) could not fill vacancies, that tenants were unhappy and that the building became stigmatized as the building that “blew up”. James Norton cross-examined Melino, carefully exposing that much of his evidence was hearsay or double hearsay and lacked reliability. Justice Schabas found his evidence to be of “little assistance to the plaintiffs”.

Ultimately, much of the plaintiffs’ case rested on assertion rather than proof. But as Schabas J. stated, “Saying it is so does not make it so”.

## Diminution in Value

A major point of contention at trial was the date when any diminution in value of the building should be determined. The plaintiffs argued that the period should run until 1815 was sold to Golden Equity in 2015 as the impact of the fire continued to that date, such that it would have been worth much more than the purchase price had the explosion not occurred. Schabas J. found this position to be flawed, factually and legally. Factual issues included.

- Given the years between the explosion, the repair date and the valuation date proposed, many other factors would have affected the value in the interim.
- The new laundry room and modernized elevators would have positive impacts on the value.
- Golden Equity was unaware of the explosion when it negotiated the purchase price in 2015. When it was disclosed, the price was not renegotiated.
- Changes to rules and new charges (parking/storage) can be upsetting to tenants. It was not reasonable to ascribe 100% of negative impacts on the laundry room and related repairs.

On the law, that the plaintiffs were continuing to pursue individual claims that were barred by Wilson J. and affirmed by the Court of Appeal. By seeking to fix damages in 2015, the plaintiffs sought their own loss of the value of the investment, rather than a loss to 1815, which continues to own the building. This conflicts with the longstanding rule in *Foss v Harbottle that “individual shareholders have no cause of action in law for any wrongs done to the corporation”.*

Justice Schabas accepted the defending parties’ expert evidence and fixed the valuation date as April 12, 2011, with the diminution of value attributable to the damage caused by the explosion as $100,000.

## Economic Losses

The plaintiffs other claims involved consequential economic losses, arguing that they would have earned more income and had a more valuable assert if not for the explosion. Schabas J. stated that the law instructions the court to find a “substantial connection” between the wrong and the injury, and that the injury was, objectively reasonably foreseeable to a reasonable person in the position of the defendants. (Mustapha v Culligan).

Justice Schabas held that the plaintiffs failed this test on each hypothetical loss claim:

- **Higher vacancies and lost rental income:** There was no evidence that vacancies were abnormal or caused by the explosion. In fact, the plaintiffs’ original business plan anticipated vacancies so they could renovate and re-lease units at higher rents. Their experts calculations of these alleged losses were also based on “market rent” comparisons that were provided by Avedian as opposed to actual market rents obtained from independent sources.
- **Parking, storage, and other alleged revenue shortfalls:** There was no evidence of tenant unhappiness that impacted their ability to increase rent or charge other fees – in fact, the rent rolls from the previous owner showed that many tenants *were* paying for parking. Additionally, since many leases included “free parking” for a year without specifying a fee to be charged the following year, the *Residential Tenancies Act* prohibited the introduction of the charge as it was not a “new service”.
- **Proposed construction of additional apartments:** Prior to the explosion, the plan to build 17 additional units was barely more than an idea. They were not built because they were not financially viable, costing $75k per unit in hard costs. The fact that Golden Equity had not built out the new units since 2015 supports the inference that they were not viable or profitable.
- **Increased insurance premiums:** As mentioned earlier, this claim was asserted based on limited and misleading disclosure by the plaintiffs.
- **Financing costs:** The assertion that the impact of the explosion prevented them from paying off a high-interest second mortgagee early was unfounded. The mortgage agreement precluded prepayment “in whole or in part” and included an “entire agreement” clause. Avedian’s assertion that the principles of Terra Firma told him they could prepay was hearsay that was not supported by evidence.
- **Management Fees:** This claim arises from an invoice that was issued in 2015 by Orion (Avedian’s company) to 1815 for time spent managing the building due to the explosion. This was not a “real debt” – it was not even disclosed to Golden Equity at the time of the sale in 2015.

With regard to actual economic loss, Justice Schabas accepted the evidence of the defending parties’ expert that the plaintiffs’ economic losses attributable to the explosion up to April 2011 were $56,631.

## Insurance Deduction

In the end, the plaintiffs damages from the explosion totalled $156,631. However, as they received $162,457 from insurance for economic losses, Justice Schabas deducted this amount, concluding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages. He held that the private insurance exception – where benefits received by a plaintiff through private insurance are not deductible – was not applicable. The existence of the subrogated claim in this case negated the private insurance exception. In addition, allowing the deduction would be contrary to the policy rationale behind the exception which is that it is unfair to let a wrongdoer benefit from an insured’s forethought. Here, the defending parties already paid $162,457 for their wrongdoing – “they do not benefit by avoiding liability as they have already paid damages, which they should not have to do again.”

## Key Takeaways

Justice Schabas’ decision offers valuable reminders for trial counsel:

- While a plaintiff is not required to call the “best evidence”, they must do more than simply assert loss to meet the burden of proof.
- Where disclosure is selective or incomplete, courts will not hesitate to draw adverse inferences that the missing evidence would not have supported the party’s case.
- Expert evidence must be truly independent and not serve as advocacy for a party’s position.
- Early and fulsome disclosure is a fundamental principle that, if ignored, can substantially undermine credibility at trial.
- As Justice Schabas emphasized, “saying it is so does not make it so”. Assertions based on hearsay, without supporting evidence, carry no weight and cannot overcome the rule against hearsay.

## Conclusion

We are proud to have been a part of the defence team that secured this outcome. The decision is a testament to the exceptional advocacy of each counsel in dismantling the plaintiffs’ case and to our clients’ remarkable resolve. Despite the plaintiffs’ “kitchen sink” approach, advancing speculative claims and theories and withholding key documents, our clients refused to yield to pressure or settle, even in the face of a protracted four-week damages trial.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Causation, Damages, Fire Loss, Ontario Superior Court, Property Loss, Trial Decision

---

### [Hudson Chalmers of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP Participates in Medical Malpractice Mock Trial at University of Toronto](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers-of-davidson-cahill-morrison-llp-participates-in-medical-malpractice-mock-trial-at-university-of-toronto/)

**Published:** December 1, 2025
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** At the 8th Annual University of Toronto Mock Trial Cup, Hudson Chalmers of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP volunteered as a trial judge. The hypothetical: a 13-year-old boy who suffered an ischemic stroke in the waiting room while a blood test that should have taken 30 to 45 minutes took two and a half hours. The problem turned on standard of care and causation, the two questions at the heart of most medical malpractice litigation.

**Content:**

On November 29, 2025, medical malpractice lawyer [Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/), of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP, volunteered as a trial judge at the 8th Annual [University of Toronto Mock Trial Cup](https://www.utorontomock.com/).

The hypothetical case involved a 13-year-old boy who attended an emergency department with a history of headaches and blurry vision. He was seen by an emergency room physician who ordered a comprehensive diagnostic blood test. It took 2.5-hours to get the results from the comprehensive diagnostic blood test, which revealed elevated platelets and glucose in the patient’s blood. By the time the results were available, the patient had an ischemic stroke while waiting in the waiting room. Had these results been available earlier, there was an opportunity to initiate treatment to manage the elevated platelets and glucose, to potentially prevent the stroke.

The mock trial dealt with issues of standard of care and causation. Standard of care turned on whether there was a breach of the standard of care in the 2.5-hour delay in getting the results, when these results are ordinarily available within 30-45 minutes. For causation, the question was whether treatment for elevated platelets and glucose could have been initiated and prevented the stroke, had the comprehensive diagnostic blood test results been available sooner.

The mock trial participants did an excellent job conducting the mock trial, including making opening and closing submissions, introducing exhibits into evidence, and conducting examinations in chief and cross-examinations. For Hudson, it was fun to see how many students are interested in trial advocacy and medical malpractice litigation, and to provide feedback and information to students on this complex area of litigation.

For a consultation regarding a medical malpractice case, please [contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/).

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Causation, Emergency Room, Moot Court, Speaking Engagement, Standard of Care

---

### [Hudson Chalmers of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP Participates as a Judge in the 2026 Legate Injury Lawyers' Medical Malpractice Moot](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers-of-davidson-cahill-morrison-llp-participates-as-a-judge-in-the-2026-legate-injury-lawyers-medical-malpractice-moot/)

**Published:** March 18, 2026
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** For the third year running, Hudson Chalmers of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP served as a trial judge at the medical malpractice moot run by Legate Injury Lawyers and the Western Health Law Association. This year's problem turned on an emergency physician's alleged failure to diagnose a pre-term, premature rupture of membranes.

**Content:**

On March 3, 2026, [Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/), an associate at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP, acted as a trial judge for the medical malpractice moot organized by [Legate Injury Lawyers](https://www.legatelaw.ca/) and Western Health Law Association. This was Hudson’s third year in a row participating as a trial judge for this competition.

The moot trial competition involves students making opening and closing statements and conduct examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations of medical experts who were being played by medical students at Western University.

This year, the competition revolved around a hypothetical case involving the failure of an emergency room physician to either refer the plaintiff to an obstetrician or diagnose her with a pre-term, premature rupture of membranes. The main issue in this competition was whether the breach of the standard of care caused on contributed to the plaintiff’s septic abortion, sepsis, Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation, and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

A big thank you to Legate Injury Lawyers and the [Western Health Law Association](https://www.instagram.com/westernhealthlawassociation_/) for organizing such an incredible event, and well done to all of the law students who participated.

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Emergency Room, Moot Court, Speaking Engagement, Standard of Care

---

### [Paul Cahill to Speak at Webinar: Defining a Winning Business Strategy for Your PI Firm](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill-to-speak-at-webinar-defining-a-winning-business-strategy-for-your-pi-firm/)

**Published:** March 20, 2026
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** How do personal injury firms build and sustain a winning practice in an increasingly competitive market? On March 25, 2026, Paul Cahill joins a panel of experienced practitioners to discuss case selection, niche development, the effective use of expert evidence, and the operational systems behind long-term firm growth.

**Content:**

[Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/) is pleased to announce that [Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/) will be a featured panelist at the upcoming webinar, *“[Defining a Winning Business Strategy for Your PI Firm](https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/8617736876376/WN_z-fT_FmLR0OpEWyNkZcxdw#/registration)”* on March 25, 2026 at 12:00 pm.

This program brings together experienced practitioners to discuss how personal injury law firms can build, refine, and sustain successful litigation practices in an increasingly competitive and evolving legal landscape.

[Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/) will contribute insights drawn from his experience acting for plaintiffs in complex medical malpractice and personal injury cases. His perspective will focus on the practical realities of building a high-performing plaintiff-side practice, including case selection, litigation strategy, and long-term firm growth.

The webinar will address a range of topics relevant to personal injury lawyers and law firm leaders, including:

- Identifying and developing a sustainable niche practice
- Strategic case selection and risk management
- Leveraging expert evidence effectively
- Building operational systems to support growth
- Adapting to changes in the legal and healthcare landscape

This event is expected to provide practical guidance for firms seeking to strengthen their position in the personal injury space while maintaining a focus on client outcomes and litigation excellence.

## Register for the Webinar

Registration is available here:
[https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/8617736876376/WN\_z-fT\_FmLR0OpEWyNkZcxdw#/registration](https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/8617736876376/WN_z-fT_FmLR0OpEWyNkZcxdw#/registration)

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Law Firm Management, Speaking Engagement, Webinar

---

### [The Contract Strikes Back: How a Breach of Builder's Risk Obligations Defeated a Subrogated Claim](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-contract-strikes-back-how-a-breach-of-builders-risk-obligations-defeated-a-subrogated-claim/)

**Published:** June 12, 2026
**Author:** Joel Cormier

**Excerpt:** A subrogating insurer steps into its insured's shoes, and inherits its insured's contractual breaches along the way. In Chippewas v Sexton's Mechanical Limited, the owner cancelled the required builder's risk policy before occupancy and before the loss. On summary judgment, the subrogated claim was dismissed. A cautionary read for insurers and contractors alike.

**Content:**

It is trite law that a subrogating insurer steps into the shoes of its insured. However, Justice McCarthy’s recent decision in *Chippewas v. Sexton’s Mechanical Limited et al.* is a sharp reminder that in doing so, the subrogating insurer also inherits its insured’s contractual obligations and the consequences of any contractual breaches.

In this lawsuit, the insurer for the owner of a commercial construction project brought a subrogated claim against an HVAC contractor as a result of damage to an outdoor cooling unit during commissioning and testing. As with most large-scale commercial construction projects, the contract documents required a builder’s risk policy to be in place. Unusually though, the owner (rather than the general contractor) agreed to take out the policy. Frustrated with delays and the ongoing cost of premiums, the owner cancelled the policy prior to obtaining an occupancy permit and, critically, prior to the date of loss. The owner made a claim to its property insurer for indemnity following the loss, and the insurer then sought to subrogate against the HVAC contractor.

Following a summary judgment motion, the court held that the owner was in breach of its contractual duty to maintain the builder’s risk policy until occupancy. As a result of the premature cancellation of the policy, neither the owner nor its insurer were entitled to bring the claim. The action was dismissed.

For insurers, the case serves as a reminder that advancing a subrogated claim in a construction context requires a fulsome review of the contract documents to ensure that subrogated rights exist and are not otherwise defeated by the insured’s conduct. For defendants (contractors, subcontractors and their insurers), the case affirms the value of reviewing the entire contractual context for any potential bars to subrogation.

**Categories:** Insurance Law

**Tags:** Breach of Contract, Builder's Risk Insurance, Civil Litigation, Construction, Property Loss, Subrogation, Summary Judgment

---

### [LawPRO Ordered to pay $1.1M to Buyers of a Winnipeg home with Unpermitted Construction](https://dcmlaw.ca/lawpro-ordered-to-pay-1-1m-to-buyers-of-a-winnipeg-home-with-unpermitted-construction/)

**Published:** June 15, 2026
**Author:** David Morin

**Excerpt:** Does a title insurer have to pay to repair a home, or can it demolish the offending work and pay the lost value instead? In a $1.1M TitlePLUS dispute over unpermitted construction on a Winnipeg home, the Court of King's Bench of Manitoba answered (2025 MBKB 131). The decision is persuasive only in Ontario and is now under appeal.

**Content:**

As we continue on in our quest to better understand and interpret Title Insurance contracts (a challenge, at the best of times), we, at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP, offer the following question: Does a title insurer have an obligation to indemnify under a policy for the costs of repair *or* can the title insurer demolish portions of a residence and then pay the corresponding diminution in value to the homeowner? Can a homeowner receive a combination of both options as covered title risks? These are common and very reasonable questions asked of us here at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP. Read on for the interesting answer as decided by Justice Toews of the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba. Please do keep in mind that this decision is currently under appeal by the Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company, so we may hear more on these questions from the Manitoba Court of Appeal in the coming months.

Let’s get started.

Jack and Maria Abiusi purchased a 3,500 square foot resale home on the southwest edge of Winnipeg, Manitoba. They paid $1,100,000 for the home and their purchase closed on March 1, 2021. Through the Winnipeg law firm that represented them on the transaction they purchased a “TitlePLUS” policy of title insurance from the Lawyer’s Professional Indemnity Company, now LawPRO, the Errors and Omissions insurer wholly owned by the Law Society of Ontario. How, and why, the Law Society of Ontario is in the business of insuring homebuyers in Manitoba is a topic for another day.

The Abiusis contributed $300,000 of their own funds and granted a mortgage to the Steinbach Credit Union (“SCU”) for the remaining $800,000. LawPRO’s “TitlePLUS” policy includes coverage for the Mortgagee which is distinct from the other title insurers who each insure Purchasers and Mortgagees under separate Owner and Loan policies. Add this to the list items in need of regulation and standardization discussed in my August 7, 2025 post.

As described in the Agreed Statement of Facts reproduced in the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench decision (Abiusi et al. v. Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company, 2025 MBKB 131 (CanLII), , Jack and Maria applied for a Building Permit to allow them to renovate the home on March 3rd, two days after Closing. As their contractor began to renovate the home, he discovered mould in the floors and walls. Upon discovering more defects Jack contacted the Planning Department of the City to speak to someone about the unpermitted work done to the home. On April 22nd the City inspected the home and immediately issued a violation notice that noted violations of the Municipal By-laws.

In their explanatory letter the City explained that the detached garage had been converted into an “attached garage” without required permits and a bedroom, bathroom and sunroom addition were constructed on the Residence without required permits.

The Abiusis claimed under their TitlePLUS policy. LawPRO admitted there was coverage so there is little discussion in the decision of either the applicable covered risk or any possible exclusions. The Abiusis and LawPRO submitted an agreed statement of facts and we can presume the coverage that was agreed to was pursuant to the following provision (emphasis added):

**TITLE COVERAGE**

*This POLICY insures you if you suffer an ACTUAL LOSS because of any of the risks listed below, provided they affect your TITLE as of the POLICY DATE (except for risks (8) and (15) which are insured if they arise or occur after the POLICY DATE);*

*(1) ….*

*(13) any order by a court or other authority after the POLICY DATE forcing you to remedy any of the following conditions existing as of the POLICY DATE:*

*(a) a breach of a zoning by-law;*

*(b) the lack of approval from a conservation or similar authority for the existing residential structure; or*

***(c) the lack of a building permit for the existing residential structure;***

Given that LawPRO admitted coverage it appears they believe the *“lack of a building permit”* affects *“your TITLE*”. See our earlier commentary on the different structures of the title insurance policies available in Canada. It really is well past time for these insurers to be regulated and these policies to become standardized.

The Abiusi decision is however very helpful in its analysis of the damages payable after coverage has been found or admitted. All of the title insurance policies sold in Canada today contain a version of this Condition found in the Abiusis’ TitlePLUS policy:

**Our Choices When You Notify Us of a Claim**

*After we receive your claim notice or otherwise become aware of a matter for which we are liable, we can in our discretion do one or more of the following:*

*a) Pay the claim against your TITLE;*

*b) Repair, replace or relocate any building, structure or improvement on the LAND;*

*c) Remove any building, structure or improvement from the LAND altogether and pay you any resulting diminution in value to the LAND; \[…\] If you incur settlement costs, legal fees and expenses, we will not reimburse you for them unless they have been approved by us in advance.*

\[It is worth noting that this 2021 language again differs significantly from the corresponding Condition found in a TitlePLUS policy issued by LawPRO in Ontario in 2024\]

The TitlePLUS policy purchased by the Abiusis also contained the following Condition:

**OBLIGATION TO PAY**

*Our obligation to pay for any one or more claims made under this POLICY is limited to the lesser of: a) your ACTUAL LOSS; or b) the POLICY AMOUNT in force when the claim is made; plus any costs, fees, and expenses we incur in defence of any third party claim and the reimbursement of rent for substitute accommodation, and this limit shall apply regardless of any other terms and provisions of this POLICY. If we remove or rectify a claim, we will have no further liability for it except for any ACTUAL LOSS that remains afterwards.*

\[Again, there are potentially important differences from the 2024 Ontario policy\]

I’ll note here that the POLICY AMOUNT in force when the claim was made was the same, as is normally the case, as the Purchase Price the Abiusis paid for their home, $1.1M. I need to quote two other provisions from the TitlePLUS policy prior to discussing the decision. The policy defines “Actual Loss” as follows:

*“ACTUAL LOSS” means any direct financial loss incurred by you or any MORTGAGE LENDER:*

- *due to a decrease in the value of your TITLE or the LAND;*
- *due to bringing your LAND into compliance with any of the title risks covered by items (11) to (16) of your Title Coverage, and with respect to the MORTGAGE LENDER items (6) – (11) of the Mortgage Coverage;*
- *arising directly from a delay in the sale, mortgaging or leasing of your LAND; or*
- *arising from any of the risks listed under the Legal Services Coverage.*

It is again worth noting that LawPRO, by this construction of its policy, describes items 11 through 16, one of which is item 13(c) the lack of a building permit, as “*title* risks” and items 11 through 16 as “*Title* Coverage”.

One final quote from the language in the Policy. This section is relevant as the Abiusis had to move from their house and find rental accommodations (and they then purchased a condominium) while the work on their home was being completed. From the Agreed Statement of Facts:

*“*The Policy further provided for indemnification for alternate living expenses as follows*: If you cannot live on the LAND because of a risk covered under this POLICY and you rent reasonable substitute accommodation, we will repay you for your actual rent until you can live on the LAND or we settle your claim.”*

The Abiusis submitted an estimate with their claim. That estimate showed that it would cost $848,000 to fix the deficiencies in the home and that other expenses, like their living expenses would need to be added. LawPRO retained a structural engineer that suggested two alternatives for dealing with the deficiencies.

The Parties submitted an agreed Statement of Issues for determination by the Court. From our perspective the most interesting issue was the following:

*“Subject to the Policy limits, does the Defendant \[LawPRO\] have an obligation to indemnify the Plaintiffs \[the Abiusis\] for the costs to repair or replace the Residence, or is the Defendant permitted to remove portions of the Residence and to indemnify the Plaintiffs for any resulting diminution in value to the Property, or indemnify the plaintiffs based on a combination of these options?”*

The Abiusis position was that LawPRO must indemnify them for the cost of repairing or replacing the house. I’ll call that the *“Repair or Replace”* option. LawPRO believed it could elect to remove non-compliant portions of the home and indemnify the Abiusis for any resulting diminution in the value of the property. I’ll call that the *“Diminution in value”* option. The parties had obtained estimates. The Abiusis estimate for Repair and Replace was over $840K. LawPRO’s estimate to remove and pay the diminution in value was significantly less.

To support their argument LawPRO cited the principles for interpreting insurance contracts set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada, 2010 SCC 33. They relied on the “Our Choices” Condition referenced above and suggested to the Court that given the underlying value of the land, if vacant, was $550,000 to pay the Abiusis the maximum amount of $1.1M under the policy would be to grant the Abiusis a *“windfall and run contrary to the principles set out in Progressive and the principles of insurance law generally.”* LawPRO believed the Policy gave them that choice.

The Court did not agree. The Court favoured the argument made by counsel to the Abiusis, Timothy Frey of Merit Law in Winnipeg. Mr. Frey advanced the position that LawPRO was obliged to indemnify the Abiusis for the cost of repairing the deficiencies. Mr. Frey cited two leading title insurance cases. The 2015 case of MacDonald v. Chicago Title Insurance Company of Canada, 2015 ONCA 842, and the 2016 case of Gemeinhardt v. Babic, 2016 ONSC 4707. He argued those cases support the proposition that to permit LawPRO to simply remove the unpermitted part of the house and pay the resulting diminution in value would not produce a *“reasonable commercial result”*.

It was also submitted by Mr. Frey, as was found in Gemeinhardt, that the title insurers market their policies to real estate lawyers:

*“… in a manner so as to encourage them not to complete due diligence searches prior to purchase and instead, to rely upon the title insurance policy for coverage. As a result of this marketing, the insured, the plaintiffs should be entitled to receive compensation for the repair costs to the Residence to the full value of the Policy rather than the lesser amount of the diminution in value.”*

The Court also referenced the finding in Gemeinhardt that to accept LawPRO’s position would mean the policy coverage was *“completely useless to the insured”*.

What a difference a couple of words can make. After Gemeinhardt we now have (at least) a third reported decision following the reasoning of the Ontario Court of Appeal in MacDonald. When the MacDonald’s lawyer recommended they purchase title insurance from Chicago Title their policy only covered insureds that were *“forced to remove”* portions of their building built without a building permit. At that time every other title policy available in the marketplace covered the insured being *“forced to remove or remedy”*. Chicago tried to deny coverage on the basis that the MacDonald’s were not being forced to remove anything. The unpermitted work had already removed too much – an interior supporting wall, and their policy did not say *“or remedy”*.

The title insurance industry in Canada really needs to settle on a standard form of policy. We have no idea how lawyers today are recommending one Company’s policy over another’s.

This case also makes it perfectly clear, again, that Courts are not impressed by title insurer marketing efforts that tell lawyers they do not need to spend $100-$150 of their clients’ money as a Disbursement to search for “any adverse matter” at the Building Dept. before Closing. If the Insurers can’t agree amongst themselves to do this then the regulators responsible for the market conduct of Property and Casualty insurers must.

Perhaps to save them from themselves.

**Categories:** Municipal Litigation

**Tags:** Building Permit, Damages, LawPRO, Manitoba Court of King's Bench, Real Estate Negligence, Residential, Title Insurance, Trial Decision

---

### [Paul Cahill to Present at OTLA Spring Conference 2026 on Surgical "Never Events" and Recognized Complication Cases](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill-to-present-at-otla-spring-conference-2026-on-surgical-never-events-and-recognized-complication-cases/)

**Published:** May 4, 2026
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Excerpt:** Proving surgical negligence means proving what happened behind the closed doors of an operating room, often with no independent witnesses and operative notes written hours later. At the OTLA Spring Conference 2026, Paul Cahill presents on the difficult line between surgical "never events" and "recognized complications," and why outcome alone is never enough to establish liability.

**Content:**

**Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is pleased to announce that partner Paul Cahill will be presenting at the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) Spring Conference 2026.** His paper, *Liability Considerations in Surgical “Never Events” or Recognized Complication Cases*, addresses one of the most difficult areas of plaintiff-side medical malpractice practice: proving negligence when the alleged misconduct occurred behind the closed doors of an operating room.

## A Uniquely Difficult Area of Medical Malpractice Law

Surgical negligence litigation is unlike most other forms of medical malpractice. The patient is under general anesthesia. There are rarely independent witnesses. Operative notes, often dictated hours after the procedure, tend to summarize how a surgery should have proceeded rather than how it actually unfolded.

Within intraoperative claims, two categories tend to dominate plaintiff practice. The first are so-called “never events,” injuries that on their face appear inconsistent with competent surgical practice. The second, and far more challenging, are “recognized complications,” adverse outcomes characterized by the defence as accepted risks of an otherwise properly performed procedure.

In Paul’s experience, the line between these two categories is often blurred. Many cases that initially present as recognized complications can, on closer analysis, be reframed as never events once the mechanism of injury is properly understood.

## The Central Legal Tension

Canadian negligence law is clear that liability cannot be inferred from outcome alone. A poor result, no matter how devastating, does not by itself prove that the standard of care was breached. Yet in surgical cases, outcome is frequently the most compelling piece of evidence available.

The task for plaintiff’s counsel, as Paul’s presentation sets out, is to bridge that gap by transforming outcome into inference, and inference into proof of substandard care.

## Key Themes Paul Will Address

Paul’s presentation draws on the governing framework established by the Supreme Court of Canada in *Armstrong v. Ward*, [2021 SCC 1](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill-to-present-at-otla-spring-conference-2026-on-surgical-never-events-and-recognized-complication-cases/canlii.ca/t/jcp08), and on two of his own reported cases:

- ***O’Neill-Renouf v. Ibrahim*, [2019 ONSC 4369](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc4369/2019onsc4369.html)**, where the Court accepted that an obturator nerve injury sustained during a transvaginal tape procedure was best explained by direct surgical trauma rather than the defence theory of edema. The case demonstrates how circumstantial evidence, particularly immediate symptom onset and anatomical specificity, can establish surgical negligence even where the operative report suggests an unremarkable procedure.
- ***Knight v. Lawson*, [2023 ONSC 570](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc570/2023onsc570.html)**, where a ureteric injury claim ultimately failed at trial. The case illustrates the limits of inferential reasoning where the defence is able to establish that certain types of injury, including thermal and ischemic mechanisms, may not be visible at the time they occur.

Paul’s analysis also addresses three recurring evidentiary challenges in this area of practice:

1. **Expert reluctance**, and how to identify experts who will engage with mechanism and probability rather than retreat into the language of recognized complications.
2. **Incomplete medical records**, including how perioperative nursing notes, anesthesia records, post-operative observations, and the timing of symptoms can be assembled to reconstruct what most likely occurred.
3. **The absence of direct evidence**, and the disciplined approach required to ensure that inferential reasoning remains grounded in the evidentiary record rather than speculation.

## A Practical Framework for Plaintiff Counsel

The presentation’s central thesis is that the most successful intraoperative surgical negligence cases share three features. The mechanism of injury is clearly identified. The defence explanations are systematically dismantled. And the inference of negligence emerges not as speculation, but as the most reasonable conclusion available on the evidence.

Paul’s goal is to provide plaintiff counsel with a practical framework for moving the Court away from treating the operative note as a definitive account of what occurred, and toward a more realistic understanding of the surgical record as one piece of evidence: important, but neither exhaustive nor immune from scrutiny.

## About Paul Cahill

Paul Cahill is a partner at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP and an experienced medical malpractice lawyer in Ontario. His practice focuses on complex civil litigation, with a particular emphasis on surgical negligence, obstetrical injury, and other plaintiff-side medical malpractice claims. He has appeared at all levels of court in Ontario and is regularly invited to speak on issues of liability, expert evidence, and trial strategy in medical negligence litigation.

## About Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is a boutique civil litigation and appellate advocacy firm based in Toronto with offices in Huntsville and Bowmanville. The firm’s practice areas include medical malpractice, personal injury, insurance law, municipal litigation, and appellate advocacy.

## Contact

For media enquiries about Paul’s OTLA presentation, or to discuss a potential surgical negligence claim, please contact our office at [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/) or visit [paulcahill.ca](https://paulcahill.ca/).

*The OTLA Spring Conference 2026 is hosted by the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, the leading professional organization representing Ontario plaintiff lawyers and their clients.*

**Categories:** Firm News

**Tags:** Expert Evidence, OTLA, Speaking Engagement, Standard of Care, Surgical Negligence

---


## Pages

### [Home](https://dcmlaw.ca/)

**Published:** June 5, 2024
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

Civil Litigation & Appellate Advocacy# Proven courtroom advocates.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is a litigation boutique practising in insurance law, medical malpractice, appeals, personal injury and municipal litigation. From offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville, we represent clients across Ontario.

 [Request a Free Consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/#consultation) [Explore Practice Areas](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/) 

 ![The lawyers of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/2025-candid-all-lawyers-1920x1080-1.jpg) 

 Best Law Firms in Canada 2026 Tier 1: Personal Injury Litigation, Medical Negligence and Insurance Law 

 Law Society of Ontario Certified Specialists in Civil Litigation 

 Serving Ontario Offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville 

     About the Firm## A boutique firm built for complex litigation.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is a litigation boutique. We try cases, we argue appeals, and other lawyers retain us to argue theirs.

Our partners include Certified Specialists in Civil Litigation, designated by the Law Society of Ontario, and our lawyers have been named in Best Lawyers in Canada for Insurance Law, Medical Negligence and Personal Injury Litigation every year since 2018.

Because we act on both sides of injury and insurance litigation, we understand how a case is built, valued, and defended, and we put that insight to work for every client.

 [Meet Our Team](https://dcmlaw.ca/our-team/) 

 ![The lawyers of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP in the firm boardroom](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/2025-candid-all-lawyers-boardroom-1920x1080-5.jpg) 

3

Offices across Ontario: Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville

Tier 1

Best Law Firms in Canada 2026 ranking in three practice areas

2018

Recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada every year since

     What We Do## Practice Areas

Focused litigation practices, each backed by decades of trial and appellate experience.

 [    Insurance LawInsurance defence in coverage disputes, subrogation, fire and property loss, occupiers' and motor vehicle claims, and class action defence.

 Learn More  ](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law) [    Medical MalpracticeClaims for patients and families seriously harmed by medical negligence: delayed diagnoses, surgical and medication errors, birth injuries, and hospital falls.

 Learn More  ](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-medical-malpractice) [    Appellate AdvocacyAppeals at the Court of Appeal for Ontario and Divisional Court, on our own cases and as counsel for other lawyers.

 Learn More  ](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-appellate-advocacy) [    Personal InjuryRepresentation for the injured: motor vehicle accidents, accident benefits, slip and falls, brain and spinal cord injuries, and disability denials.

 Learn More  ](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury) [    Municipal LitigationClaims for homeowners against negligent builders and municipal inspectors, plus title insurance and related property disputes.

 Learn More  ](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-municipal-litigation) 

     Credentials Matter## Recognized by the profession.

 Ranked Tier 1 in Best Law Firms in Canada 2026

 [ ![2026 Best Law Firms Canada, Personal Injury Litigation, Tier 1](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2026-best-law-firms-canada-personal-injury-litigation-tier-1.png) ](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/104420/CA) [ ![2026 Best Law Firms Toronto, Medical Negligence, Tier 1](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2026-best-law-firms-toronto-medical-negligence-tier-1.png) ](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/104420/CA) [ ![2026 Best Law Firms Greater Toronto, Insurance Law, Tier 1](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2026-best-law-firms-greater-toronto-insurance-law-tier-1.png) ](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/104420/CA) 

     ### Certified Specialists

Our lawyers include Certified Specialists in Civil Litigation, a designation granted by the Law Society of Ontario to lawyers who have met established standards of experience and knowledge in their field.

    ### Best Lawyers in Canada

Our lawyers have been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada every year since 2018, for their work in Insurance Law, Medical Negligence and Personal Injury Litigation.

     Our Team## Led by experienced trial counsel.

 [All Lawyers & Staff](https://dcmlaw.ca/our-team/) 

 [ ![Jim Davidson, Partner](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Jim-Davidson-Portrait-scaled.webp) Jim Davidson Partner ](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson/) [ ![Paul Cahill, Partner](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Paul-Cahill-Portrait-scaled.webp) Paul Cahill Partner ](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/) [ ![Chris Morrison, Partner](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Chris-Morrison-Portrait-scaled.webp) Chris Morrison Partner ](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/) [ ![David Morin, Managing Partner](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/David-Morin-Portrait-scaled.webp) David Morin Managing Partner ](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/) 

     Client Reviews## What our clients say.

 [Read Reviews and Watch Client Stories](https://dcmlaw.ca/testimonials/)

     From the Firm## News & Insights

 [View All Posts](https://dcmlaw.ca/blog/) 

  [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP card reading "No Coverage Until a Request Is Made", with a portrait of partner Chris Morrison.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/)###  [ No Coverage Until a Request Is Made: The Court of Appeal on Fleet Policies and OPCF 21A ](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/) 

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/) 

   [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP title card reading "Ottawa Floods and Construction Defects," with a photo of partner Peter Reinitzer.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/dcm-ottawa-floods-construction-card.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/)###  [ After the Deluge: When Ottawa Basement Flooding Points to Construction Deficiencies ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/) 

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/)

---

### [Margaret Klassen](https://dcmlaw.ca/margaret-klassen/)

**Published:** July 9, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Associate

# Margaret Klassen

"I bring an analytical and compassionate approach with the aim to resolve my client's legal challenges efficiently and effectively."

An associate who pairs an analytical, empathetic approach with seven years of experience inside the Superior Court of Justice.

- Toronto office
- 
 
 [Contact Margaret](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 507-3902](tel:+14165073902) 

 [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/margaret-klassen-9a809362/) 

    ## About Margaret Klassen

Margaret Klassen is a resilient and determined lawyer who brings a keen analytical mind and an empathetic approach to her work.

Before joining Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP, Margaret spent seven years at the Superior Court of Justice, where her attention to detail and dedication to client service ensured every matter was handled with care. At Western Law, she assisted low-income and marginalized community members through Community Legal Services, where she served as a Team Leader.

Outside of work, Margaret enjoys the gym and hot yoga, reading, podcasts, and spending time with her corgi, Axl.

## Practice focus

Margaret's work centres on two areas:

 [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) 

## Credentials

- Called to the Bar of Ontario, 2024
- Juris Doctor, Western University, 2023
- Bachelor of Arts, Honours Specialization in Criminology with a minor in Psychology, Western University, 2017

  ### Contact

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2W4

[(416) 507-3902](tel:+14165073902)

[LinkedIn profile](https://www.linkedin.com/in/margaret-klassen-9a809362/)

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) 

   From the blog

## Recent insights from Margaret

Notes and commentary on recent decisions and developments.

  [![Apartment Building](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/apartment-building.jpg)](https://dcmlaw.ca/no-damages-awarded-for-the-building-that-blew-up-16-million-damages-claim-dismissed-after-13-years-of-litigation/)###  [ No Damages Awarded for “The Building that Blew Up”: $16 Million Damages Claim Dismissed After 13-Years of Litigation ](https://dcmlaw.ca/no-damages-awarded-for-the-building-that-blew-up-16-million-damages-claim-dismissed-after-13-years-of-litigation/) 

Liability for the 2010 laundry-room gas explosion was admitted, so the only question at trial was damages, and the plaintiffs sought more than $16 million. After a four-week trial and nearly 13 years of litigation, Justice Schabas of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the action entirely, finding the plaintiffs had not proven the explosion caused their claimed losses. Christopher Morrison and Margaret Klassen acted for the fourth parties.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/no-damages-awarded-for-the-building-that-blew-up-16-million-damages-claim-dismissed-after-13-years-of-litigation/) 

   [![TTC Bus](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/ttc-bus.jpg)](https://dcmlaw.ca/ontario-court-of-appeal-upholds-1-5-million-jury-award-in-ttc-bus-collision-case/)###  [ Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds $1.5 Million Jury Award in TTC Bus Collision Case ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ontario-court-of-appeal-upholds-1-5-million-jury-award-in-ttc-bus-collision-case/) 

A pickup truck stopped in traffic, a rear-end collision with a TTC bus, and a jury award topping $1.5 million for chronic pain and lost earning capacity. On appeal, the defendants attacked the trial judge’s jury charge on causation, apportionment, and past income loss. In Meldazy v Nassar, 2025 ONCA 590, the Court of Appeal found no error and dismissed the appeal, a reminder that an appeal is not a second trial.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ontario-court-of-appeal-upholds-1-5-million-jury-award-in-ttc-bus-collision-case/) 

   [![Interior of Osgoode Hall](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/osgoode-hall-interior.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/court-of-appeal-upholds-nearly-1-million-in-costs-following-jury-trial-in-pye-v-di-trapani/)###  [ Court of Appeal Upholds Nearly $1 Million in Costs Following Jury Trial in Pye v Di Trapani ](https://dcmlaw.ca/court-of-appeal-upholds-nearly-1-million-in-costs-following-jury-trial-in-pye-v-di-trapani/) 

An 18-day jury trial, a damages award just over $1 million, and a costs award of nearly the same amount: the defendants said the trial judge had failed to test the plaintiff’s costs for reasonableness and proportionality. In Pye v Di Trapani, 2025 ONCA 355, the Court of Appeal disagreed, reaffirming the broad discretion trial judges hold over costs and the powerful role a Rule 49 offer plays in the result.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/court-of-appeal-upholds-nearly-1-million-in-costs-following-jury-trial-in-pye-v-di-trapani/) 

    [All posts by Margaret](https://dcmlaw.ca/author/margaret-klassen/) 

   Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

## Work with Margaret Klassen

For an insurance or personal injury matter, Margaret and the firm's team are ready to help. The first conversation is straightforward and without obligation.

 [Contact Margaret](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 507-3902](tel:+14165073902) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Kathleen Lefebvre](https://dcmlaw.ca/kathleen-lefebvre/)

**Published:** July 28, 2025
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Associate

# Kathleen Lefebvre

"My approach is grounded in delivering practical, effective solutions that get results."

An insurance defence and coverage litigator, appearing regularly before the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

- Toronto office
- 
 
 [Contact Kathleen](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 643-3837](tel:+14166433837) 

 [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathleen-lefebvre-142565156/) 

    ## About Kathleen Lefebvre

Kathleen Lefebvre is a strategic advocate whose practice focuses on insurance litigation and coverage. She has experience across a broad range of claims, including property and casualty, occupiers' liability, motor vehicle accidents, product liability and construction disputes.

As defence counsel, Kathleen represents insured individuals in personal injury and property damage matters. In her coverage practice, she advises and litigates on all types of liability policies, including commercial general liability, travel, automobile and homeowner policies. She appears regularly before the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

She is known for her responsiveness, precision and ability to deliver effective solutions under pressure, and she approaches each file with diligence and tenacity. Away from her practice, Kathleen enjoys time with family and friends, biking, golfing, snowboarding and a good book.

## Practice focus

Kathleen's work centres on two areas:

 [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/) [Appellate Advocacy](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-appellate-advocacy/) 

## Notable cases

Reported decisions Kathleen has worked on. Each links to the full decision on CanLII.

- [*Construction Distribution & Supply Company Inc v Continental Casualty Company (CNA Insurance)*, 2024 ONCA 405](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca405/2024onca405.html)
- [*Priestly Demolition Inc v Universal Designs Ltd*, 2024 ONCA 75](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca75/2024onca75.html)
- [*Schroeder v Co-operators General Insurance Company*, 2024 ONCA 54](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca54/2024onca54.html)
- [*Schroeder v Co-operators General Insurance Company*, 2023 ONSC 1937](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc1937/2023onsc1937.html)
 
## Credentials

- Called to the Bar of Ontario, 2021
- Juris Doctor, Queen's University
- Bachelor of Arts (Ethics and Society), University of Ottawa

  ### Contact

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2W4

[(416) 643-3837](tel:+14166433837)

[LinkedIn profile](https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathleen-lefebvre-142565156/)

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) 

   From the blog

## Recent insights from Kathleen

Notes and commentary on recent decisions and developments.

  [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP card reading "No Coverage Until a Request Is Made", with a portrait of partner Chris Morrison.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/)###  [ No Coverage Until a Request Is Made: The Court of Appeal on Fleet Policies and OPCF 21A ](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/) 

A leased Honda Civic was in an accident in August 2020. It first appeared on a monthly fleet report a month later, and had been leased since 2017 without ever making the schedule of automobiles. In 2026 ONCA 553, the Court of Appeal held that OPCF 21A (c) means what its capital letters say: no coverage until a request for coverage is filed, and no coverage backdated to policy inception. Chris Morrison and Kathleen Lefebvre were counsel for the successful appellant.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/) 

   [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP title card reading "Ottawa Floods and Construction Defects," with a photo of partner Peter Reinitzer.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/dcm-ottawa-floods-construction-card.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/)###  [ After the Deluge: When Ottawa Basement Flooding Points to Construction Deficiencies ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/) 

The historic Canada Day 2026 storm left thousands of Ottawa homeowners tearing out drywall and replacing ruined furnaces. But an extraordinary weather event does not absolve builders and engineers of liability: where one home floods while its neighbours stay dry, the real cause may be a hidden construction defect, and that opens a very different path to recovery, if you act before the limitation clock runs out.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/) 

   [![The Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP team in matching blue jerseys on the sand at Woodbine Beach, holding a volleyball in front of the Heatwave for SickKids banner.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/dcm-heatwave-sickkids-2026.jpg)](https://dcmlaw.ca/playing-for-sickkids-2026-heatwave-beach-volleyball-tournament/)###  [ Playing for SickKids at the 2026 Heatwave Beach Volleyball Tournament ](https://dcmlaw.ca/playing-for-sickkids-2026-heatwave-beach-volleyball-tournament/) 

On July 11, 2026, our team traded the office for the sand at Woodbine Beach to play in the 32nd annual Heatwave for SickKids beach volleyball tournament. The event, which holds a Guinness World Record as the largest of its kind, has raised roughly $5 million for SickKids Foundation, and we were glad to lend a hand.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/playing-for-sickkids-2026-heatwave-beach-volleyball-tournament/) 

    [All posts by Kathleen](https://dcmlaw.ca/author/kathleen-lefebvre/) 

   Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

## Work with Kathleen Lefebvre

For an insurance coverage dispute, a defended liability claim, or an appeal, Kathleen is ready to help. The first conversation is straightforward and without obligation.

 [Contact Kathleen](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 643-3837](tel:+14166433837) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/)

**Published:** June 24, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Associate

# Hudson Chalmers

"Advocating with purpose and compassion."

An associate practising personal injury and insurance litigation, with a particular focus on medical malpractice.

- Toronto office
- 
 
 [Contact Hudson](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194,240) 

 [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/hudson-chalmers-639593191/) 

    ## About Hudson Chalmers

Hudson Chalmers completed his articles at Will Davidson LLP, now Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP, in 2020. His practice spans personal injury and insurance litigation, with a particular focus on medical malpractice. He takes pride in understanding both sides of a dispute and putting that perspective to work for the people he represents.

Away from the office, Hudson enjoys basketball, golf and travelling.

## Practice focus

Hudson's work centres on three areas:

 [Medical Malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-medical-malpractice/) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/) 

## Notable cases

Reported decisions Hudson has worked on. Each links to the full decision on CanLII.

- [*Shaw Estate v Handler*, 2025 ONCA 868](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca868/2025onca868.html)
- [*Thompson v Handler*, 2023 ONSC 5042](https://canlii.ca/t/k00fx)
- [*2112-05559 (Re)*, 2022 ONSBT 2247](https://canlii.ca/t/jt2r2)
- [*Singh v Fiorio*, 2022 ONSC 664](https://canlii.ca/t/jm5md)
- [*Malik v Nikbakht*, 2021 ONCA 176](https://canlii.ca/t/jdvkt)
- [*Noori v Liu*, 2020 ONSC 3049](https://canlii.ca/t/j7sj4)
 
## Credentials

- Called to the Bar of Ontario, 2020
- Juris Doctor, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law, 2019
- Bachelor of Arts (History), Queen's University, 2016
- Articled at Will Davidson LLP, now Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP
 
## Community

Hudson has served as a judge at the Legate Medical Malpractice Moot at Western University for three consecutive years, most recently in March 2026.

  ### Contact

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2W4

[(416) 360-1194 ext. 240](tel:+14163601194,240)

[LinkedIn profile](https://www.linkedin.com/in/hudson-chalmers-639593191/)

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) 

   From the blog

## Recent insights from Hudson

Notes and commentary on recent decisions and developments.

  [![Ontario Courtroom](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Ontario-Courtroom.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/rule-53-03-and-opposing-late-filed-expert-reports/)###  [ Rule 53.03 and Opposing Late-Filed Expert Reports ](https://dcmlaw.ca/rule-53-03-and-opposing-late-filed-expert-reports/) 

A March 2022 amendment quietly raised the bar for litigants who serve their expert reports late. Where the old rule granted leave almost as of course, the party at fault must now show a reasonable explanation and the absence of uncompensable prejudice or undue delay. Three years of Ontario rulings show the courts taking the change seriously, which makes opposing a late report a tactic well worth considering.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/rule-53-03-and-opposing-late-filed-expert-reports/) 

   [![Exterior of Osgoode Hall](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/osgoode-hall-exterior.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/welcome-changes-to-the-rules-of-civil-procedure/)###  [ Welcome Changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure ](https://dcmlaw.ca/welcome-changes-to-the-rules-of-civil-procedure/) 

“Justice delayed is justice denied.” Few principles are repeated more often, yet civil cases in Ontario routinely take more than five years to reach trial. The Civil Rules Review, launched by the Attorney General and the Chief Justice, released its Phase 2 Consultation Paper in April 2025 with proposals to make civil proceedings faster, more affordable, and more accessible. A look at what the changes could mean for plaintiffs and defendants alike.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/welcome-changes-to-the-rules-of-civil-procedure/) 

   [![Hudson Chalmers and Alex Wolfe](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/hudson-chalmers-and-alex-wolfe-medical-malpractice-moot.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers-judges-western-laws-medical-malpractice-moot-trial/)###  [ Hudson Chalmers Judges Western Law’s Medical Malpractice Moot Trial ](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers-judges-western-laws-medical-malpractice-moot-trial/) 

On February 25, 2025, Hudson Chalmers volunteered as a judge at Western Law’s Medical Malpractice Moot Trial, organized by Legate Injury Lawyers and the Western Health Law Association. The hypothetical turned on whether an emergency physician met the standard of care in a delayed stroke diagnosis. He reflects on advocacy, expert evidence, and this year’s exceptionally strong students.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers-judges-western-laws-medical-malpractice-moot-trial/) 

    [All posts by Hudson](https://dcmlaw.ca/author/hudson-chalmers/) 

   Working with Hudson

## Hudson's team

Hudson works with the firm's Toronto staff, your day-to-day point of contact on a file.

Monika Kopacz-Raczka

Law Clerk

[(416) 360-1194 ext. 168](tel:+14163601194,168)

   Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

## Work with Hudson Chalmers

For a possible medical malpractice, personal injury or insurance claim, Hudson and the firm's team are ready to help. The first conversation is straightforward and without obligation.

 [Contact Hudson](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194,240) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Tiffany Usher](https://dcmlaw.ca/tiffany-usher/)

**Published:** June 24, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Associate

# Tiffany Usher

"With diligent analysis I strive to obtain the best possible legal results for my clients."

An insurance and civil litigator acting for individual and insurer clients, from subrogation and coverage to personal injury and property claims.

- Toronto office
- 
 
 [Contact Tiffany](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 643-3835](tel:+14166433835) 

 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/tiffanyusher1/) 

    ## About Tiffany Usher

Tiffany Usher is a strategic, determined and fearless advocate who represents both individual and insurance clients. Her practice spans a broad range of civil litigation, including subrogation, coverage, tort and personal injury, occupiers' liability, land use planning and development, property damage and product liability.

Having acted for parties on both sides of disputes, Tiffany brings a tactical, multifaceted perspective to her clients' matters. A strong negotiator and problem-solver, she is willing to go the distance in the courtroom but also recognizes the value of early resolution. She has appeared, or drafted materials, before every level of court in Ontario, as well as the Committee of Adjustment and the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

Tiffany earned a Bachelor of Arts in political science and psychology and her Juris Doctor from the University of Western Ontario. Outside the office, she enjoys exercise, travel, podcasts, and time with her husband, family and friends.

## Practice focus

Tiffany acts on both sides of insurance and civil disputes, including subrogation, coverage, occupiers' liability, land use planning, property damage and product liability:

 [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) 

## Notable cases

A reported decision in which Tiffany acted. The citation links to the decision on CanLII.

- [*Pronesti v Jonuzaj*, 2023 ONTLAB 54](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/ontlab/doc/2023/2023ontlab54/2023ontlab54.html)
 
## Recognition and credentials

- Recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Canada for Insurance Law (2026)
- Juris Doctor and Bachelor of Arts (Political Science and Psychology), University of Western Ontario

  ### Contact

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2W4

[(416) 643-3835](tel:+14166433835)

[LinkedIn profile](https://www.linkedin.com/in/tiffanyusher1/)

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) 

   From the blog

## Recent insights from Tiffany

Notes on insurance, subrogation and civil litigation.

  [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP card reading "No Coverage Until a Request Is Made", with a portrait of partner Chris Morrison.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/)###  [ No Coverage Until a Request Is Made: The Court of Appeal on Fleet Policies and OPCF 21A ](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/) 

A leased Honda Civic was in an accident in August 2020. It first appeared on a monthly fleet report a month later, and had been leased since 2017 without ever making the schedule of automobiles. In 2026 ONCA 553, the Court of Appeal held that OPCF 21A (c) means what its capital letters say: no coverage until a request for coverage is filed, and no coverage backdated to policy inception. Chris Morrison and Kathleen Lefebvre were counsel for the successful appellant.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/) 

   [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP title card reading "Ottawa Floods and Construction Defects," with a photo of partner Peter Reinitzer.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/dcm-ottawa-floods-construction-card.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/)###  [ After the Deluge: When Ottawa Basement Flooding Points to Construction Deficiencies ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/) 

The historic Canada Day 2026 storm left thousands of Ottawa homeowners tearing out drywall and replacing ruined furnaces. But an extraordinary weather event does not absolve builders and engineers of liability: where one home floods while its neighbours stay dry, the real cause may be a hidden construction defect, and that opens a very different path to recovery, if you act before the limitation clock runs out.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/) 

   [![The Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP team in matching blue jerseys on the sand at Woodbine Beach, holding a volleyball in front of the Heatwave for SickKids banner.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/dcm-heatwave-sickkids-2026.jpg)](https://dcmlaw.ca/playing-for-sickkids-2026-heatwave-beach-volleyball-tournament/)###  [ Playing for SickKids at the 2026 Heatwave Beach Volleyball Tournament ](https://dcmlaw.ca/playing-for-sickkids-2026-heatwave-beach-volleyball-tournament/) 

On July 11, 2026, our team traded the office for the sand at Woodbine Beach to play in the 32nd annual Heatwave for SickKids beach volleyball tournament. The event, which holds a Guinness World Record as the largest of its kind, has raised roughly $5 million for SickKids Foundation, and we were glad to lend a hand.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/playing-for-sickkids-2026-heatwave-beach-volleyball-tournament/) 

    [All posts by Tiffany](https://dcmlaw.ca/author/tiffany-usher/) 

   The Team

## Tiffany's team

Tiffany works with a law clerk in the firm's Toronto office, your day-to-day point of contact on a file.

Monika Kopacz-Raczka

Law Clerk

[(416) 360-1194 ext. 168](tel:+14163601194,168)

   Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

## Work with Tiffany Usher

Whether you are an individual or an insurer, Tiffany brings a strategic, tactical approach to subrogation, coverage, personal injury and property disputes at every level of court in Ontario. The first conversation is straightforward and without obligation.

 [Contact Tiffany](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 643-3835](tel:+14166433835) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Peter Reinitzer](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer/)

**Published:** June 24, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Partner

# Peter Reinitzer

"Analytical. Creative. Fearless."

A Huntsville litigator in municipal, insurance, personal injury and property claims, with a strong record at trial and on appeal.

- Huntsville office
- 
 
 [Contact Peter](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740,506) 

 President, Muskoka Law Association [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterreinitzer/) 

    ## About Peter Reinitzer

Peter Reinitzer began his litigation career at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP (formerly Will Davidson LLP) in 2017, after a short period as in-house counsel for a property developer. Working primarily from the firm's Huntsville office for clients across the province, he has built a broad commercial and insurance practice with a focus on personal injury and property loss.

Peter's love of law is rooted in his respect for the power of argument. In his youth, he wrote an essay that convinced his parents to buy him a Nintendo, and he has been honing his analytical skills ever since.

A fearless advocate, he combines trial advocacy with creative alternative dispute resolution to help clients reach the outcomes they want. He appears regularly at the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal, where he has litigated numerous trials and appeals, and has resolved many disputes through mediated settlement.

Peter is an active member of the legal community, including the Canadian and Ontario Bar Associations, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association and The Advocates Society, and is president of the Muskoka Law Association. Outside practice, he spends time with his family, travels, plays the violin and enjoys the Muskoka outdoors.

## Practice focus

Peter works across three areas, with a particular focus on municipal liability and property claims:

 [Municipal Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-municipal-litigation/) [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) 

## Notable cases

A selection of Peter's reported decisions. Each links to the judgment on CanLII.

- [*Huether v Sharpe*, 2025 ONCA 140](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca140/2025onca140.html)
- [*Kramer v Ballantyne-Gaska*, 2025 ONCA 1](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca1/2025onca1.html)
- [*Andrade v Collins*, 2023 ONSC 6011](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc6011/2023onsc6011.html)
- [*Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)*, 2022 ONCA 626](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca626/2022onca626.html)
- [*Tokarz v Selwyn (Township)*, 2022 ONCA 246](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca246/2022onca246.html)
- [*Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)*, 2021 ONSC 533](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc533/2021onsc533.html)
- *Tokarz v Selwyn (Township)*, 2020 ONSC 4115 (unreported)
- [*White v Bracebridge (Town)*, 2020 ONSC 3926](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc3926/2020onsc3926.html)
- [*White v Bracebridge (Town)*, 2020 ONSC 3060](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc3060/2020onsc3060.html)
- [*Bowman v Martineau*, 2020 ONCA 330](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2020/2020onca330/2020onca330.html)
- [*Wesley v Geneau*, 2020 ONSC 868](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc868/2020onsc868.html)
- [*Onley v Whitby (Town)*, 2020 ONSC 20](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc20/2020onsc20.html)
- [*Breen v FCT Insurance Company Ltd*, 2019 ONCA 598](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2019/2019onca598/2019onca598.html)
- [*Pollice v Muskoka Creative Construction & Renovation Inc*, 2019 ONSC 5009](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc5009/2019onsc5009.html)
- [*Pollice v Muskoka Creative Construction & Renovation Inc*, 2019 ONSC 2715](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc2715/2019onsc2715.html)
- [*Bowman v Martineau*, 2019 ONSC 2141](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc2141/2019onsc2141.html)
- [*Bowman v Martineau*, 2019 ONSC 1468](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc1468/2019onsc1468.html)
- [*Breen v FCT Insurance Company Ltd*, 2018 ONSC 3644](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc3644/2018onsc3644.html)
 
## Recognition and credentials

- President, Muskoka Law Association
- Member of the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Bar Association, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association and The Advocates Society
- Called to the Ontario bar in 2015
- JD, University of Windsor (2014); BA, Queen's University (2008)
 
## Speaking

- "Anatomy of Real Estate Litigation and the Implications of the *Breen* Decision," Sudbury Colloquium, Civil Litigation Seminar (2023)
- "Ready, Set, Litigate: The Advantages and Challenges of Conducting a Zoom Trial," Will Davidson (2021)

  ### Contact

322 Muskoka Road 3 North
Huntsville, Ontario P1H 1C4

[(705) 788-3740 ext. 506](tel:+17057883740,506)

[LinkedIn profile](https://www.linkedin.com/in/peterreinitzer/)

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) 

   From the blog

## Recent insights from Peter

Notes on municipal, insurance and property litigation.

  [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP title card reading "Ottawa Floods and Construction Defects," with a photo of partner Peter Reinitzer.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/dcm-ottawa-floods-construction-card.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/)###  [ After the Deluge: When Ottawa Basement Flooding Points to Construction Deficiencies ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/) 

The historic Canada Day 2026 storm left thousands of Ottawa homeowners tearing out drywall and replacing ruined furnaces. But an extraordinary weather event does not absolve builders and engineers of liability: where one home floods while its neighbours stay dry, the real cause may be a hidden construction defect, and that opens a very different path to recovery, if you act before the limitation clock runs out.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/) 

   [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP case comment card reading "Kamlu Engineering v 2502301 Ontario Inc" with the subtitle "A board-less corporation lacks the capacity to sue", from dcmlaw.ca.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/kamlu-v-2502301-card.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/board-less-corporation-cannot-sue/)###  [ Kamlu v 2502301 Ontario Inc: Why a Board-Less Corporation Cannot Litigate ](https://dcmlaw.ca/board-less-corporation-cannot-sue/) 

In Kamlu v 2502301 Ontario Inc, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed an action as a nullity after the defence discovered the plaintiff corporation had operated for years with no valid board of directors, its sole directing mind an undischarged bankrupt. Justice Chiappetta held that an officer’s authority cannot outlive the board, and that a trustee’s silence is not ratification. A cautionary tale on corporate governance and the capacity to litigate.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/board-less-corporation-cannot-sue/) 

   [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP title card reading "Slatkovsky v Machado", with the line "A non-delegable permit duty and a dual agent's duty to disclose". Case comment, civil litigation, from dcmlaw.ca.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/slatkovsky-v-machado.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/slatkovsky-v-machado-unpermitted-renovation/)###  [ Unpermitted Renovations and Dual Agency: Key Takeaways from Slatkovsky v Machado ](https://dcmlaw.ca/slatkovsky-v-machado-unpermitted-renovation/) 

A Puslinch century farmhouse looked beautifully renovated. The structural work had no building permit, and no one disclosed it. In Slatkovsky v Machado, the Ontario Superior Court held both the vendors and their double-ending agent liable, awarding the buyers $150,318 and confirming that the owner’s permit duty cannot be passed off to a contractor.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/slatkovsky-v-machado-unpermitted-renovation/) 

    [All posts by Peter](https://dcmlaw.ca/author/peter-reinitzer/) 

   The Team

## Peter's team

Peter works with a paralegal and a legal assistant in the firm's Huntsville office. They are your day-to-day points of contact on a file.

Emma Burton

Paralegal

[(705) 788-3740 ext. 515](tel:+17057883740,515)

Tania Quinlan

Legal Assistant

[(705) 788-3740 ext. 503](tel:+17057883740,503)

   Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

## Work with Peter Reinitzer

Whether your matter involves municipal liability, an insurance or property dispute, or a personal injury claim, Peter brings analytical, creative and fearless advocacy at trial, on appeal and in mediation. The first conversation is straightforward and without obligation.

 [Contact Peter](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740,506) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Joel Cormier](https://dcmlaw.ca/joel-cormier/)

**Published:** June 24, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Partner

# Joel Cormier

"The most essential trait of a good litigator is not a readiness to fight, but a willingness to listen."

A litigator in subrogation, insurance defence, construction and personal injury, with extensive experience at trial and on appeal.

- Toronto office
- 
 
 [Contact Joel](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194,258) 

 [Best Lawyers in Canada](https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/joel-cormier/317791) [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/joel-cormier-79336341/) 

    ## About Joel Cormier

Joel Cormier earned his LLB from Queen's University in 2005 and was called to the Ontario bar in 2006. He practises in subrogation, insurance defence, construction and personal injury litigation, with considerable experience representing clients at trial and on appeal.

Joel is known for a direct, long-term approach with the individuals and businesses who retain him, and has spoken regularly on personal injury trial practice and litigating in a changed litigation landscape.

He has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for personal injury litigation since 2023.

## Practice focus

Joel acts primarily in insurance and subrogation matters, with a parallel personal injury practice. His work also extends to construction claims.

 [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) 

## Notable cases

A selection of Joel's reported decisions. Each links to the judgment on CanLII.

- [*Noori v Liu*, 2021 ONSC 3445](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc3445/2021onsc3445.html)
- [*Mohebbi v Yassobi*, 2021 ONSC 2395](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc2395/2021onsc2395.html)
- [*Rill Products v 711371 Ontario Corp*, 2020 ONSC 2135](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc2135/2020onsc2135.html)
- [*Noori v Liu*, 2020 ONSC 3049](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc3049/2020onsc3049.html)
- [*MTCC No. 1100 v Shanks Plumbing & Heating*, 2020 ONCA 67](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2020/2020onca67/2020onca67.html)
- [*Ning Li v Park Avenue*, 2019 ONSC 2264](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc2264/2019onsc2264.html)
- [*Ning Li v Park Avenue*, 2019 ONSC 1147](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc1147/2019onsc1147.html)
- [*McKnight v Ontario (Transportation)*, 2019 ONCA 28](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2019/2019onca28/2019onca28.html)
- [*Chiocchio v Hamilton (City)*, 2018 ONCA 762](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2018/2018onca762/2018onca762.html)
- [*Kingridge (Bronte) Inc v 1140114 Ontario Inc*, 2018 ONCA 957](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2018/2018onca957/2018onca957.html)
- [*Maio v Mer Mechanical Inc*, 2018 ONSC 4426](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc4426/2018onsc4426.html)
- [*O'Brien v O'Brien*, 2018 ONSC 4665](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc4665/2018onsc4665.html)
- [*Marsh Canada Limited v Centennial Plumbing and Heating Limited*, 2018 ONSC 348](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc348/2018onsc348.html)
- [*O'Brien v O'Brien*, 2017 ONSC 3502](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc3502/2017onsc3502.html)
- [*Marsh Canada Limited v Centennial Plumbing and Heating Limited*, 2017 ONSC 6853](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc6853/2017onsc6853.html)
- [*MTCC No. 1100 v Shanks Plumbing & Heating*, 2017 ONSC 7237](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc7237/2017onsc7237.html)
- [*Conundrum Capital Corp v Century Plumbing and Heating*, 2016 ONCA 20](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2016/2016onca20/2016onca20.html)
- [*Carone v Peel Condominium Corp No. 766*, 2016 ONSC 5483](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc5483/2016onsc5483.html)
- [*Carone v Peel Condominium Corp No. 766*, 2016 ONSC 7821](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc7821/2016onsc7821.html)
- [*Buurman v Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co*, 2015 ONSC 6444](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc6444/2015onsc6444.html)
- [*Henry v Harvey*, 2015 ONSC 2135](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc2135/2015onsc2135.html)
- [*Marsh Canada Ltd v Centennial Plumbing and Heating Ltd*, 2014 ONSC 1154](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc1154/2014onsc1154.html)
- [*MacKay v Starbucks Corp*, 2010 ONSC 3172](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc3172/2010onsc3172.html)
- *Dickson v Broan-Nuton Canada Inc*, \[2007\] O.J. No. 5114
- *Nestlé Canada Inc v Alltech Inc*, 2007 CarswellOnt 1782
 
## Recognition and credentials

- Recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for Personal Injury Litigation, since 2023
- LLB, Queen's University (2005); called to the Ontario bar in 2006

  ### Contact

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2W4

[(416) 360-1194 ext. 258](tel:+14163601194,258)

[LinkedIn profile](https://www.linkedin.com/in/joel-cormier-79336341/)

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) 

   From the blog

## Recent insights from Joel

Notes on insurance, subrogation and civil litigation.

  [![Legal case banner on dark blue background: firm name on the left, case comment label on the right, large title Chippewas v Sexton’s Mechanical Limited with subtitle about builder’s risk and subrogation](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/chippewas-v-sextons-mechanical.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-contract-strikes-back-how-a-breach-of-builders-risk-obligations-defeated-a-subrogated-claim/)###  [ The Contract Strikes Back: How a Breach of Builder’s Risk Obligations Defeated a Subrogated Claim ](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-contract-strikes-back-how-a-breach-of-builders-risk-obligations-defeated-a-subrogated-claim/) 

A subrogating insurer steps into its insured’s shoes, and inherits its insured’s contractual breaches along the way. In Chippewas v Sexton’s Mechanical Limited, the owner cancelled the required builder’s risk policy before occupancy and before the loss. On summary judgment, the subrogated claim was dismissed. A cautionary read for insurers and contractors alike.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-contract-strikes-back-how-a-breach-of-builders-risk-obligations-defeated-a-subrogated-claim/) 

   [![A jury box](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/jury-box.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-importance-of-keeping-civil-juries-in-ontario/)###  [ The Importance of Keeping Civil Juries in Ontario ](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-importance-of-keeping-civil-juries-in-ontario/) 

Calls to abolish Ontario’s civil juries resurface from time to time, usually on the argument that they are slow, costly, or biased. This article makes the case for keeping them, explaining how juries check judicial bias, bring public participation and diversity to the justice system, and why the common arguments against them do not hold up.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-importance-of-keeping-civil-juries-in-ontario/) 

    [All posts by Joel](https://dcmlaw.ca/author/joel-cormier/) 

   The Team

## Joel's team

Joel works with a law clerk in the firm's Toronto office, your day-to-day point of contact on a file.

Tanyka Thomas

Law Clerk

[(416) 360-1194 ext. 229](tel:+14163601194,229)

   Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

## Work with Joel Cormier

For a subrogation, insurance, construction or personal injury matter, Joel brings a practical, trial-tested approach and a record of taking cases through to appeal. The first conversation is straightforward and without obligation.

 [Contact Joel](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194,258) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Chris Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/)

**Published:** June 17, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Partner

# Chris Morrison

"Trial verdicts boldly proclaim 'It's over!' Appeals whisper 'Not quite.'"

An appellate and insurance litigator with more than 60 reported decisions in the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada.

- Toronto office
- 
 
 [Contact Chris](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 643-3850](tel:+14166433850) 

 [Best Lawyers in Canada](https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/chris-morrison/317788) [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-morrison-027a8b14/) 

    ## About Chris Morrison

Chris Morrison has a 25-year career in appeals and civil litigation, and has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for his work in personal injury litigation since 2023.

As an appellate lawyer, Chris has argued many multi-million dollar civil appeals, including the largest wrongful-death award for general damages in Canadian history. His appeals in the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada have become part of the established jurisprudence on tort liability and insurance, and he has more than 60 reported decisions.

His insurance work spans general liability, cyber, environmental, builders risk, wrap-up liability and professional negligence, for a roster of national institutional and international clients, alongside counsel work for other lawyers. By nature a problem-solver, he has been retained on complex construction defect claims, products liability, class proceedings and coverage disputes. Under his joint stewardship of the firm's defence practice, the firm has been recognized as one of the Best Law Firms in Canada for insurance by the Globe and Mail, and the subrogation practice he leads has recovered millions for insurers.

Chris is a respected speaker in both the plaintiff and insurance bar, and has authored papers on class proceedings, evidence, insurance law and product liability. He has been an invited speaker for the Canadian Institute, the Canadian Defence Lawyers Association, the American Association for Justice and the Ontario Bar Association.

## Practice focus

Chris works across three areas:

 [Appellate Advocacy](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-appellate-advocacy/) [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) 

## Notable cases

A selection of Chris's reported decisions. Each links to the judgment on CanLII.

- [*Shaw Estate v Handler*, 2025 ONCA 868](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca868/2025onca868.html)Successfully defended a medical malpractice judgment on appeal; the Court of Appeal upheld the findings on standard of care and causation arising from a failure to act on updated diagnostic information after discharge.
- [*Pye v Di Trapani*, 2025 ONCA 355](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca355/2025onca355.html)Defended a costs and prejudgment interest award of nearly $1 million on appeal; the Court of Appeal affirmed the broad trial-level discretion and rejected the proportionality challenge.
- [*Meldazy v Nassar*, 2025 ONCA 590](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca590/2025onca590.html)Upheld a jury award of over $1.5 million in a TTC bus collision case; the Court of Appeal dismissed challenges to the jury questions and instructions.
- *Avedian v Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc*, 2025 ONSC (Schabas J.)Defended the dismissal of a $16 million consequential loss claim arising from a 2010 gas explosion; the court found no compensable economic loss.
- [*Avedian v Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc*, 2024 ONSC 2376](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc2376/2024onsc2376.html)Successful on complex procedural motions in long-running explosion litigation; the court rejected the tactical challenges and awarded substantial costs.
- [*Greenwin Inc v St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company*, 2023 ONSC 5097](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc5097/2023onsc5097.html)Defended St. Paul Fire and Marine in a $19 million settlement dispute.
- [*Electek Power Services Inc v Greenfield Energy Centre Limited Partnership*, 2022 ONSC 894](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc894/2022onsc894.html)Quashed an arbitration in a $14 million claim relating to a transformer fire.
- [*Moore v 7595611 Canada Corp*, 2021 ONCA 459](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca459/2021onca459.html)Upheld the largest general-damages award for wrongful death in Canadian jurisprudence.
- [*Woods v Jackiewicz*, 2020 ONCA 458](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2020/2020onca458/2020onca458.html)Upheld an $11.5 million verdict in a medical malpractice claim won at first instance by his partner Paul Cahill.
- [*MTCC No. 1100 v Shanks Plumbing & Heating*, 2020 ONCA 67](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2020/2020onca67/2020onca67.html)Upheld the dismissal of a $10 million fire-loss claim.
- [*MTCC No. 1100 v Shanks Plumbing & Heating*, 2017 ONSC 7237](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc7237/2017onsc7237.html)Defended a $10 million fire-loss claim against an insured.
- [*McKnight v Ontario (Transportation)*, 2019 ONCA 28](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2019/2019onca28/2019onca28.html)Upheld one of the largest general-damages awards in Canada for soft-tissue and psychological injuries from a motor vehicle accident.
- [*Stilwell v World Kitchen Inc*, 2014 ONCA 770](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2014/2014onca770/2014onca770.html)Upheld a multi-million dollar product liability verdict against Dow Corning.
- [*Demarco v Dominion of Canada*, 2012 ONSC 2076](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc2076/2012onsc2076.html)Upheld the exclusion of a multi-million dollar pollution claim for the Dominion.
- [*Horti-Pak Inc v Nikko Materials U.S.A. Inc*, 2009 CanLII 43188 (Ont SC)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii43188/2009canlii43188.html)Defended an electrician in a multi-million dollar electrical fire claim.
- [*W.H. v H.C.A.*, 2006 CanLII 27865 (Ont CA)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2006/2006canlii27865/2006canlii27865.html)Overturned a trial decision dismissing a claim against a sexual abuser; a leading case on abuse of process.
- [*Young Estate v Janssen-Ortho Inc*, 2003 CanLII 16347 (Ont CA)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2003/2003canlii16347/2003canlii16347.html)Quashed an appeal by Janssen-Ortho in a class proceeding relating to substitution of parties.
- [*Boulanger v Johnson & Johnson Corp*, 2003 CanLII 52154 (Ont CA)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2003/2003canlii52154/2003canlii52154.html)Argued in support of a novel tort of regulatory non-compliance against a pharmaceutical manufacturer in a class proceeding.
- [*Robb Estate v Canadian Red Cross Society*, 2002 CanLII 35822 (Ont CA)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2002/2002canlii35822/2002canlii35822.html)Overturned a trial decision that had found the Red Cross liable for the distribution of contaminated blood.
- [*Walker Estate v York Finch General Hospital*, 2001 SCC 23, \[2001\] 1 SCR 647](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc23/2001scc23.html)Argued one of the leading causation cases in the Supreme Court of Canada.
- [*Chippewas of Sarnia Band v Canada (Attorney General)*, 1996 CanLII 8015 (Ont SC)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1996/1996canlii8015/1996canlii8015.html)Part of the team that certified the first reverse class proceeding in Ontario.
 
## Recognition and credentials

- Recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for Personal Injury Litigation, since 2023
- More than 60 reported decisions, including appeals in the Supreme Court of Canada and the Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Joint lead of the firm's defence practice, recognized as one of the Best Law Firms in Canada for insurance (Globe and Mail)
- Leads the firm's subrogation practice

  ### Contact

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2W4

[(416) 643-3850](tel:+14166433850)

[LinkedIn profile](https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-morrison-027a8b14/)

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) 

   From the blog

## Recent insights from Chris

Notes and commentary on appeals, insurance and civil litigation.

  [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP card reading "No Coverage Until a Request Is Made", with a portrait of partner Chris Morrison.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/)###  [ No Coverage Until a Request Is Made: The Court of Appeal on Fleet Policies and OPCF 21A ](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/) 

A leased Honda Civic was in an accident in August 2020. It first appeared on a monthly fleet report a month later, and had been leased since 2017 without ever making the schedule of automobiles. In 2026 ONCA 553, the Court of Appeal held that OPCF 21A (c) means what its capital letters say: no coverage until a request for coverage is filed, and no coverage backdated to policy inception. Chris Morrison and Kathleen Lefebvre were counsel for the successful appellant.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/) 

   [![Court Awards Costs of $195,000 After Two Day Motion](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/court-awards-costs-of-195000-after-two-day-motion.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/court-awards-costs-of-195000-after-two-day-motion/)###  [ Court Awards Costs of $195,000 After Two Day Motion ](https://dcmlaw.ca/court-awards-costs-of-195000-after-two-day-motion/) 

The defence was universally successful on a hard-fought set of motions in Avedian v Enbridge Gas Distribution, including the plaintiff’s bids to strike the defences and to recuse the trial judge. The court awarded $195,000 in costs, well above the usual range for a motion, and its reasons are a clear reminder of the price unnecessary and tactical motions impose on clients and the court.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/court-awards-costs-of-195000-after-two-day-motion/) 

    [All posts by Chris](https://dcmlaw.ca/author/chris-morrison/) 

   The Team

## Chris's team

Chris works with a law clerk in the firm's Toronto office, your day-to-day point of contact on a file.

ET

Eduarda Tavares

Law Clerk

[(416) 360-1194 ext. 239](tel:+14163601194,239)

   Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

## Work with Chris Morrison

For an appeal, a coverage dispute, or complex civil litigation, Chris brings 25 years of appellate and insurance experience and a record of more than 60 reported decisions. He also acts as counsel to other lawyers. The first conversation is straightforward and without obligation.

 [Contact Chris](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 643-3850](tel:+14166433850) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Jim Davidson](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson/)

**Published:** June 17, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Partner

# Jim Davidson

"My strength is finding the shortest path to the best possible outcome for my clients."

Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation, acting for both insurers and individuals since 1993.

- Toronto office
- 
 
 [Contact Jim](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 643-3840](tel:+14166433840) 

 LSO Certified Specialist Best Lawyers in Canada [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jim-davidson-6b986217/) 

    ## About Jim Davidson

Jim Davidson is a partner at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP and a Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation. He has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for his work in both personal injury and insurance law since 2018.

Jim’s practice is unique in that he is one of the few lawyers in his industry who represents both insurance companies and individual clients. He has significant experience in injury, fatality and disability claims. He is regularly consulted by insurance companies and other lawyers in determining coverage for uninsured and underinsured losses.

Jim began practicing law in 1993 and is currently head of the firm’s Insurance Group. He has a Masters of Law (LLM) in Dispute Resolution from the University of Sydney, Australia. He is frequently asked to speak at legal conferences and has been the Subject Matter Expert (Civil Litigation) for Toronto Metropolitan University’s Law Practice Program since 2017.

## Practice focus

Jim's work centres on two areas, on both sides of the dispute:

 [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) 

## Speaking and teaching

Jim is the Subject Matter Expert in Civil Litigation for Toronto Metropolitan University's Law Practice Program and a frequent presenter for the Ontario Bar Association, the Law Society of Ontario and other professional bodies. Recent engagements include:

- "Opening Statement of the Defendant," Ontario Bar Association, Anatomy of a Trial (2026)
- "Cross-Examination of the Plaintiffs’ Expert," Ontario Bar Association, Anatomy of a Trial (2025)
- "Opening Statement of the Defendant," Ontario Bar Association, Anatomy of a Trial (2024)
- "Implications of Rowan's Law," Law Society of Ontario, Concussion Symposium (2024)
- "Examination of the Defence's Accident Reconstruction Engineer," Ontario Bar Association, Anatomy of a Trial (2023)
- "The Use of Social Work Assessments in Litigation," Medico-Legal Society of Toronto (2023)
- "Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) and Other Neurodegenerative Consequences of Concussion," Law Society of Ontario, Concussion Symposium (2022)
 
## Recognition and credentials

- Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation, Law Society of Ontario
- Recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for personal injury and insurance law, since 2018
- Head of the firm's Insurance Group
- Master of Laws (LLM) in Dispute Resolution, University of Sydney, Australia
- Author, Without Prejudice Magazine (2020)

  ### Contact

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2W4

[(416) 643-3840](tel:+14166433840)

[LinkedIn profile](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jim-davidson-6b986217/)

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) 

   From the blog

## Recent insights from Jim

Notes and commentary on insurance and personal injury litigation.

  [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP feature card titled "Statutory Third Parties" with the subhead "When an insurer joins after denying coverage" and a circular headshot of Jim Davidson, Insurance Litigation Lawyer.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/statutory-third-parties-card.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/a-lawyers-guide-to-statutory-third-parties/)###  [ A Lawyer’s Guide to Statutory Third Parties ](https://dcmlaw.ca/a-lawyers-guide-to-statutory-third-parties/) 

Statutory third parties are one of the trickier corners of Ontario automobile insurance litigation. This practitioner’s guide explains s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act: when an insurer can add itself as a statutory third party after denying coverage, how other parties can challenge that step, and the potential for prejudice to the at-fault defendant.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/a-lawyers-guide-to-statutory-third-parties/) 

    [All posts by Jim](https://dcmlaw.ca/author/jim-davidson/) 

   The Team

## Jim's team

Jim works with law clerks in the firm's Toronto and Huntsville offices. They are your day-to-day points of contact on a file.

Krystal Garrison

Law Clerk

[(416) 360-1194 ext. 249](tel:+14163601194,249)

Helen Pozdeev

Law Clerk

[(705) 788-3740 ext. 502](tel:+17057883740,502)

   Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

## Work with Jim Davidson

Whether you are an insurer seeking advice or an individual with a serious injury, fatality or disability claim, Jim brings three decades of experience on both sides of the dispute. The first conversation is straightforward and without obligation.

 [Contact Jim](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 643-3840](tel:+14166433840) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/)

**Published:** June 13, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Partner

# Paul Cahill

"Achieving successful outcomes in challenging medical malpractice lawsuits is what I do best."

A trial lawyer for patients and families in serious medical malpractice and personal injury claims, and trial counsel to other lawyers on select matters.

- Toronto office
- 
 
 [Contact Paul](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 643-3857](tel:+14166433857) 

 [LSO Certified Specialist](https://lso.ca/directory-of-certified-specialists/civil-litigation/paul-cahill) [Best Lawyers in Canada](https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/paul-cahill/271366) [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-cahill-37a160b/) 

    ## About Paul Cahill

Paul Cahill's advocacy, in and out of the courtroom, has led the Law Society of Ontario to certify him as a Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

He has built a record of successful trial outcomes, including a $11.5 million judgment for medical malpractice that caused cerebral palsy, and a judgment against a negligent emergency room physician whose care led to the death of a 34-year-old mother of four. He has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for medical negligence and personal injury litigation since 2021.

Paul is a past director of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (2020 to 2023) and past chair of its Medical Malpractice Section (2019 to 2020). On select matters, he acts as trial counsel to other lawyers in medical malpractice and serious personal injury claims. He was called to the Ontario bar in 2005.

## Practice focus

Paul's practice is built around two areas:

 [Medical Malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-medical-malpractice/) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) 

## Notable cases

A selection of Paul's reported decisions. Each links to the judgment on CanLII or the court's website.

- [*Shaw Estate v Handler*, 2025 ONCA 868](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca868/2025onca868.html)
- [*Thompson v Handler*, 2023 ONSC 5042](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc5042/2023onsc5042.html)
- [*Knight v Lawson*, 2023 ONSC 570](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc570/2023onsc570.html)
- [*Adler v Promenade General Partner Inc*, 2021 ONSC 5393](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc5393/2021onsc5393.html)
- [*Hacopian-Armen Estate v Mahmoud*, 2021 ONCA 545](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca545/2021onca545.html)
- [*Arksey v Sky Zone Toronto*, 2021 ONSC 4594](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc4594/2021onsc4594.html)
- [*Hacopian-Armen v Mahmoud*, 2020 ONSC 4946](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc4946/2020onsc4946.html)
- [*Woods v Jackiewicz*, 2020 ONCA 458](https://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2020/2020ONCA0458.pdf)
- [*O'Neill-Renouf v Ibrahim*, 2019 ONSC 4369](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc4369/2019onsc4369.html)
- [*Woods v Jackiewicz*, 2019 ONSC 2334](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc2334/2019onsc2334.html)
- [*Woods v Jackiewicz*, 2019 ONSC 2305](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc2305/2019onsc2305.html)
- [*Woods v Jackiewicz*, 2019 ONSC 2178](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc2178/2019onsc2178.html)
- [*Woods v Jackiewicz*, 2019 ONSC 2069](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc2069/2019onsc2069.html)
- [*Woods v Jackiewicz*, 2019 ONSC 1930](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc1930/2019onsc1930.html)
- [*Rietta v Casino Rama Inc*, 2018 ONSC 2403](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc2403/2018onsc2403.html)
- [*C.S. v Minister of Employment and Social Development*, 2016 SSTGDIS 66](http://canlii.ca/t/h0qxx)
- [*Yazdani v Ezzati*, 2015 ONSC 7262](http://canlii.ca/t/gmhm2)
- [*Stilwell v World Kitchen Inc*, 2014 ONCA 770](http://canlii.ca/t/gf5p7)
- [*Woods (Litigation Guardian of) v Jackiewicz*, 2013 ONSC 519](http://canlii.ca/t/fvrxr)
- [*Walker v Burlington (City)*, 2012 ONSC 2565](http://canlii.ca/t/fr4sv)
- [*Billings v Mississauga (City)*, 2011 ONCA 247](http://canlii.ca/t/fktqr)
- [*Billings v Mississauga (City)*, 2010 ONSC 3101](http://canlii.ca/t/2bz4q)
- [*Park v Lee*, 2009 ONCA 651](http://canlii.ca/t/25mdm)
- [*Ayana v Skin Klinic*, \[2009\] O.J. No. 3341](http://canlii.ca/t/253q8)
- [*Cena v Oakville (Town)*, \[2009\] O.J. No. 251](http://canlii.ca/t/226z9)
- [*J.J. Barnicke Limited v 1471422 Ontario Limited*, \[2007\] O.J. No. 3740](http://canlii.ca/t/1t39q)
- [*St Jean v Cheung*, \[2007\] O.J. No. 3562](http://canlii.ca/t/1szb1)
- [*Dzehverovic v 6220746 Canada Ltd*, 159 A.C.W.S. (3d) 52](http://canlii.ca/t/1s4l6)
- [*Verkerk v Workplace Safety and Insurance Board*, \[2007\] O.J. No. 2835](http://canlii.ca/t/25ps1)
- [*Standard Life Assurance Company v Elliott*, \[2007\] O.J. No. 2031](http://canlii.ca/t/1rkql)
- [*St Jean v Cheung*, \[2007\] O.J. No. 992](http://canlii.ca/t/1qw29)
- [*Williams v Bowler*, \[2006\] O.J. No. 2347](http://canlii.ca/t/1nk1w)
- [*Sasso v Copeland*, \[2005\] O.J. No. 5226](http://canlii.ca/t/1m4s9)
 
## Recognition and credentials

- Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation, Law Society of Ontario
- Recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for Medical Negligence and Personal Injury Litigation, since 2021
- Past Director, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (2020 to 2023)
- Past Chair, Medical Malpractice Section, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (2019 to 2020)
- Called to the Ontario bar, 2005
 
## Speaking and teaching

Paul speaks regularly for the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, the Law Society of Ontario and other professional bodies, and guest lectures at the University of Windsor Faculty of Law. Recent engagements include:

- Panellist, "Defining a Winning Business Strategy for Your PI Firm," Legal Innovation Forum (2026)
- "Causation: Medical Malpractice and Intervening Acts," Law Society of Ontario, Motor Vehicle Litigation Summit (2025)
- Guest lecturer, second-year torts, University of Windsor Faculty of Law (2025)
- "Causation in Systemic Medical Negligence Claims," Medico-Legal Society of Toronto (2024)
- "Bad Doctor or Bad Genes? The Role of Genetics in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits," Ontario Trial Lawyers Association Fall Conference (2023)
- "Tales from the Trenches: Two Medical Malpractice Trials in 2022," Gluckstein Lawyers Medical Malpractice Conference (2022)
- Co-chair, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association Medical Malpractice Conference (2020)
 
## Publications

- "From Start to Finish: How to Ensure Your Expert is Permitted to Testify at Trial," The Litigator, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (2023 to 2024)
- "Waivers: How Enforceable Are They?", The Litigator, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (2022)
- "Pros and Cons of Juries in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits," The Lawyer's Daily (2019)

  ### Contact

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2W4

[(416) 643-3857](tel:+14166433857)

[LinkedIn profile](https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-cahill-37a160b/)

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) 

   From the blog

## Recent insights from Paul

Case comments and notes on medical malpractice and personal injury litigation.

  [![Navy and gold title card reading "The 2026 OTLA Cup, Supporting the next generation of Ontario trial lawyers," with the Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP name and the green OTLA logo, from dcmlaw.ca.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/dcm-otla-cup-2026.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/davidson-cahill-morrison-2026-otla-cup-sponsor/)###  [ Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP Sponsors the 2026 OTLA Cup ](https://dcmlaw.ca/davidson-cahill-morrison-2026-otla-cup-sponsor/) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP was proud to sponsor the 2026 OTLA Cup, held March 5 at the Hamilton Superior Court of Justice. Ontario law students argued a layered negligence trial arising from a residential gas explosion, before a three-judge panel. Congratulations to this year’s award winners.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/davidson-cahill-morrison-2026-otla-cup-sponsor/) 

   [![Interior of Osgoode Hall](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/osgoode-hall-interior.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/shaw-estate-v-handler-court-of-appeal-dismisses-er-doctors-appeal-of-judgment-against-him-relating-to-death-of-34-year-old-mother-of-4/)###  [ Shaw Estate v. Handler – Court of Appeal Dismisses ER Doctor’s Appeal of Judgment Against Him Relating to Death of 34-Year Old Mother of 4 ](https://dcmlaw.ca/shaw-estate-v-handler-court-of-appeal-dismisses-er-doctors-appeal-of-judgment-against-him-relating-to-death-of-34-year-old-mother-of-4/) 

Elisha Shaw was 34 and a mother of four when she died after being discharged from an emergency department with an undiagnosed internal hernia. After a 12-day trial, the Ontario Superior Court found the emergency physician negligent. In Shaw Estate v Handler, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has now dismissed his appeal and upheld that finding, bringing the family a measure of finality nearly a decade on.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/shaw-estate-v-handler-court-of-appeal-dismisses-er-doctors-appeal-of-judgment-against-him-relating-to-death-of-34-year-old-mother-of-4/) 

   [![Traumatic Brain Injury - MRI Results](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/traumatic-brain-injury-mri-results.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/non-earner-benefits-denied-because-of-medical-malpractice/)###  [ Non-Earner Benefits Denied Because of Medical Malpractice ](https://dcmlaw.ca/non-earner-benefits-denied-because-of-medical-malpractice/) 

It is not uncommon for a car accident victim to suffer further harm through medical negligence while being treated for accident-related injuries. In Midak v RSA, the Licence Appeal Tribunal denied non-earner benefits after finding the claimant’s traumatic brain injury arose from a later fall at a pain clinic, not the accident itself. The decision is a useful study in causation and the interplay between malpractice and statutory accident benefits.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/non-earner-benefits-denied-because-of-medical-malpractice/) 

    [All posts by Paul](https://dcmlaw.ca/author/paul-cahill/) 

   The Team

## Paul's team

Paul works with a law clerk and a legal nurse consultant in the firm's Toronto office. They are your day-to-day points of contact on a file.

Agnes Dyjach

Law Clerk

[(416) 360-1194 ext. 251](tel:+14163601194,251)

Elysia Semella

Legal Nurse Consultant

[(416) 360-1194 ext. 235](tel:+14163601194,235)

   Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

## Work with Paul Cahill

If you or your family has been harmed by medical care, or you are a lawyer seeking trial counsel for a malpractice or serious injury claim, Paul is ready to help. The first conversation is straightforward and without obligation.

 [Contact Paul](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 643-3857](tel:+14166433857) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Practice Areas](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/)

**Published:** June 5, 2024
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

The Firm

# Five practice areas.
One standard:
proven in court.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is a boutique civil litigation and appellate firm, acting for insurers and for the people who bring claims against them, at trial and on appeal.

 [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194) 

DisciplineCivil Litigation and Appellate Advocacy

RecognitionBest Law Firms in Canada, Tier 1 for Insurance Law (2026)

OfficesToronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville

   What We Do

## Litigation, on both sides of the table

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is a boutique civil litigation and appellate firm. Our work falls into five practice areas. Some, like insurance defence, are for institutions. Others, like medical malpractice and personal injury, are for the individuals and families on the other side of the dispute. Appellate advocacy serves both through every level of court.

Acting on both sides makes us better. We know how an insurer evaluates a claim because we defend them, and we know how a plaintiff builds one because we bring them. Select a practice area below to learn more.

    01 · For insurers

### [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/)

We act for insurers, and for the insureds they appoint us to defend, across personal and commercial lines. The practice covers liability and property defence, fire and construction losses, motor vehicle and occupiers' liability claims, class action defence, coverage opinions and disputes, and subrogated recovery, all backed by an in-house appellate group.

Who we act for**Insurers, claims professionals and coverage counsel**

 [View practice area ](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/) 

  02 · For patients

### [Medical Malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-medical-malpractice/)

We represent patients and families seriously harmed by negligent medical care. Our work includes birth trauma and obstetrical injury, delayed and missed diagnoses, surgical and medication errors, hospital falls, and other failures in the hospital and clinical setting.

Who we act for**Injured patients and families**

 [View practice area ](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-medical-malpractice/) 

  03 · For both sides

### [Appellate Advocacy](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-appellate-advocacy/)

We run appeals in-house, for appellants and respondents alike, in the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada, and on judicial review of tribunal decisions. We also act as appellate counsel for other plaintiff and defence lawyers.

Who we act for**Parties to an appeal and referring counsel**

 [View practice area ](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-appellate-advocacy/) 

  04 · For the injured

### [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/)

We act for people seriously injured in motor vehicle collisions, falls and other accidents, and for the families of those who are catastrophically hurt or killed. We pursue both the no-fault accident benefits and the tort claim against the at-fault party, on a contingency fee basis.

Who we act for**Injured people and families**

 [View practice area ](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) 

  05 · For property owners

### [Municipal Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-municipal-litigation/)

We act for property owners across Ontario in claims against municipalities for negligent building inspection, in building code and work order disputes, and in title insurance claims against title insurers when a building or permit issue surfaces.

Who we act for**Property owners**

 [View practice area ](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-municipal-litigation/) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP also acts in commercial litigation for businesses and individuals. If your matter does not fit neatly into the areas above, [contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) and we will point you in the right direction.

   Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

## Not sure where your matter fits?

If you are not certain which practice area applies, or your matter spans more than one, contact us. We will listen, tell you whether we can help, and point you in the right direction if we are not the right firm for the job.

 [Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/)

**Published:** June 11, 2026
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

Practice Areas · Insurance Law

# Defence and coverage counsel
for the insurers
who instruct us.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP defends insurers and their insureds across Ontario, from first notice of loss to the Court of Appeal, and advises on coverage long before a claim is issued.

 [Discuss a new matter](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194) 

Group LeadsJim Davidson and Chris Morrison, Partners

RecognitionBest Law Firms in Canada, Tier 1 for Insurance Law (2026)

Appellate BenchMore than 60 reported decisions in tort and insurance, with appeals run in-house

    [Who we act for](#clients) [What we defend](#defend) [Coverage](#coverage) [How we work](#approach) [Appeals](#appeals) [The file](#file) [The group](#team) [FAQ](#faq) 

   The Practice

My strength is finding the shortest path to the best possible outcome for my clients. Jim Davidson, Partner and Head of the Insurance Group

Insurers do not retain outside counsel for routine files. They retain counsel when a matter carries real exposure: a serious bodily-injury claim, a multi-party construction or fire loss, a coverage question that decides whether the policy responds at all, or a class proceeding that puts an entire line of business in issue. Those are the files this group is built for.

The insurance group is led by partners [Jim Davidson](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson/) and [Chris Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/), supported by a defence and coverage team that includes [Joel Cormier](https://dcmlaw.ca/joel-cormier/), [Tiffany Usher](https://dcmlaw.ca/tiffany-usher/), [Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/), [Kathleen Lefebvre](https://dcmlaw.ca/kathleen-lefebvre/) and [Margaret Klassen](https://dcmlaw.ca/margaret-klassen/). We act for insurers and for the insureds they appoint us to defend, and we advise insurers directly on coverage.

What distinguishes our practice group is our courtroom and appellate experience. Many claims resolve on paper. The ones that do not are resolved on the strength of counsel who try cases and argue appeals.

   Who We Act For

## Counsel to the insurance industry

Our clients are institutions and the professionals who run their files. We are retained to defend claims, to resolve them efficiently, and to advise on the coverage questions that sit behind them. The common thread is exposure that justifies experienced counsel.

 CLIENTS### Primary and excess insurers

We act for insurers across personal and commercial lines, defending the claims they assign and advising on the ones they question.

 CLIENTS### Claims professionals and adjusters

We work the way a claims department does: early assessment, a defence plan and budget you approve, and reporting that lets you set reserves with confidence.

 CLIENTS### Insureds appointed to us

When an insurer appoints us to defend its insured, that policyholder receives a trial-ready defence, with the duty owed to the insured fully respected.

 CLIENTS### Other lawyers and firms

We are retained as counsel by other defence lawyers on coverage questions, complex defences and appeals, including matters referred from firms without an in-house appellate group.

   Lines We Defend

## What we defend

Our defence work spans personal and commercial lines. The matters we are most often retained on include the following. If a line is not listed, it does not mean we cannot assist, so please ask.

 Liability### Commercial and general liability

Bodily injury and property damage claims under commercial general liability policies, defending insureds across a wide range of industries.

 Motor Vehicle### Motor vehicle and bodily injury

Efficient, cost-effective defence of bodily-injury claims arising from motor vehicle accidents, including the interplay between tort claims and statutory accident benefits.

 Premises### Occupiers' liability

Defence of slip and fall claims on behalf of general liability policyholders and the institutional clients who insure them.

 Property### Fire and property loss

Defence of commercial and residential fire and property loss claims, where insurers and adjusters apply close scrutiny to cause, origin and quantum.

 Construction### Construction defects

Course-of-construction, defective work and related claims, including the coordination of multiple trades, sureties and insurers.

 Project Risk### Wrap-up and builders risk

Wrap-up liability and builders risk exposures on large construction and development projects.

 Products### Product liability

Defence of product liability and product-related property damage claims, including multi-defendant supply-chain disputes.

 Professional### Professional negligence

Defence of professional negligence and errors and omissions claims brought against insured professionals.

 Environmental### Environmental claims

Environmental loss and contamination claims, including historical exposures and disputes that turn on pollution wording.

 Cyber### Cyber and privacy

Cyber, data-breach and privacy claims, an area of growing exposure for insurers across every line.

 Class Actions### Class action defence

Defence of class proceedings, including environmental losses, large property claims and product liability.

 Recovery### Subrogated recovery

Prosecution of subrogated claims on behalf of insurers seeking to recover from at-fault third parties after a significant loss.

   Coverage

## Coverage, before and after a claim

Before a defence is ever mounted, the first question is often whether the policy responds at all. Chris Morrison is regularly consulted by insurers and by other lawyers on exactly that question, including coverage for uninsured and underinsured losses. We give coverage opinions that are practical and timely, written so a claims professional can act on them.

Where coverage is genuinely in issue, we advise on the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify, on reservation of rights and non-waiver, and we litigate coverage and priority disputes when they cannot be resolved any other way.

### Our coverage work

- Coverage opinions on new and developing claims
- Duty to defend and duty to indemnify analysis
- Reservation of rights and non-waiver agreements
- Declaratory and coverage actions
- Priority and "other insurance" disputes
- Uninsured and underinsured exposure

   Working With Insurers

## Built for the way claims departments work

Outside counsel earns its place by making a file easier to manage, not harder. That means an honest read early, a defence run in proportion to the exposure, and no surprises along the way.

 ONE### Early assessment and reserves

A candid view of liability, exposure and likely cost at the outset, so reserves are set on real information rather than optimism.

 TWO### Proportionate, cost-effective defence

We staff and run files based on the true exposure. Efficiency here is not a slogan; it is how we keep defence costs proportionate to what is genuinely at stake.

 THREE### Reporting you can rely on

Clear, timely reporting aligned to your file-handling guidelines, with a defence plan and budget you approve and no gaps between updates.

 FOUR### Trial and appellate credibility

Files resolve on terms that reflect how they would end at trial. Counsel genuinely prepared to try the case, and to argue the appeal, change that calculus in your favour.

   Appeals

## Appeals are not an afterthought here

Insurance disputes do not always end at trial. An adverse judgment, a novel coverage ruling or a certification decision can put far more at stake on appeal than the original claim did. Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP runs its appeals in-house, and the same group that defends a file can carry it through the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal for Ontario and, where it goes that far, the Supreme Court of Canada.

Chris Morrison has more than sixty reported decisions and has argued multi-million-dollar civil appeals, including the largest award of general damages for wrongful death in Canadian history. His work in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada has become part of the established law of tort liability and insurance. For an insurer, that means an appeal can be assessed honestly and argued by counsel who has been there before.

### Appellate work

- Court of Appeal for Ontario, for appellants and respondents
- Divisional Court appeals and judicial review
- Supreme Court of Canada appeals
- Appellate strategy and opinions for other defence counsel
- Appeals of certification and interlocutory rulings

   From Instruction to Resolution

## How a defence file runs with us

Every matter is different, but a defence file tends to move through the same stages. We tell you what to expect at each one including the cost and true exposure.

### Intake and conflicts

We open the file quickly, clear conflicts, and confirm the scope of the retainer and exactly who we are instructed to act for.

### Early assessment and reserves

A candid early view of liability, exposure and likely cost, so you can set reserves on real information from the start.

### Defence plan and budget

A defence strategy and a budget you approve up front, staffed to the exposure and aligned to your file-handling guidelines.

### Discovery and experts

Documentary and oral discovery, and the right experts, to test the claim and narrow what is genuinely in issue.

### Resolution or trial

Most files resolve on terms that reflect their trial value. When a reasonable resolution is not available, we are ready to try the case.

### Appeal where it matters

If the result warrants it, the same group assesses and argues the appeal, without handing the file to anyone else.

   Engagement

## Instructed the way insurers prefer to instruct

We are used to working within the structures insurers and claims departments already use. Fee arrangements are flexible and agreed at the outset, and the defence is staffed and run in proportion to what is actually at stake.

We act from offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville, and appear in courts and tribunals throughout Ontario.

- Litigation budgets and defence plans agreed up front
- Reporting aligned to your file-handling guidelines
- Staffing kept proportionate to the exposure
- Coverage, defence and appeals handled within one group

   The Group

## The insurance group

Partner · Insurance Group Lead

### Jim Davidson

My strength is finding the shortest path to the best possible outcome for my clients.

Jim heads the firm's insurance group and is a Law Society of Ontario Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation. He has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for both insurance law and personal injury litigation since 2018, and is regularly consulted by insurers and other lawyers on coverage, including uninsured and underinsured losses. He began practising in 1993 and holds a Master of Laws in Dispute Resolution from the University of Sydney.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson/) 

Partner · Appeals and Defence

### Chris Morrison

Trial verdicts boldly proclaim "It's over!" Appeals whisper "Not quite."

Chris co-leads the firm's defence practice and brings a 25-year career in appeals and civil litigation. He has argued multi-million-dollar civil appeals, including the largest award of general damages for wrongful death in Canadian history, and has more than sixty reported decisions in tort liability and insurance. His insurance experience spans general liability, cyber, environmental, builders risk, wrap-up liability and professional negligence, for national institutional and international clients.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/) 

Partner

### Joel Cormier

The most essential trait of a good litigator is not a readiness to fight, but a willingness to listen.

Joel's practice centres on subrogation, insurance defence, construction and personal injury litigation, with considerable experience at trial and on appeal. He has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for personal injury litigation since 2023. He earned his law degree from Queen's University and was called to the Ontario bar in 2006.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/joel-cormier/) 

Associate

### Tiffany Usher

With diligent analysis I strive to obtain the best possible legal results for my clients.

Tiffany acts for insurance and individual clients across a broad range of civil litigation, including subrogation, coverage, occupiers' liability, property damage and product liability. Her experience on both sides of disputes gives her a tactical perspective she uses to her clients' advantage. She has appeared at every level of court in Ontario and holds her law degree from the University of Western Ontario.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/tiffany-usher/) 

Associate

### Hudson Chalmers

Advocating with purpose and compassion.

Hudson's practice includes personal injury and insurance litigation, and he takes pride in understanding both sides of a dispute and applying that to his clients' advantage. He completed his articles at the firm (then Will Davidson LLP) and was called to the Ontario bar in 2020. He holds a history degree from Queen's University and his law degree from the University of Windsor.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/) 

Associate

### Kathleen Lefebvre

My approach is grounded in delivering practical, effective solutions that get results.

Kathleen's practice is focused on insurance litigation and coverage, spanning property and casualty, occupiers' liability, motor vehicle, product liability and construction claims. In her coverage work she advises and litigates on commercial general liability, travel, automobile and homeowner policies, and she appears before the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario. She holds her law degree from Queen's University.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/kathleen-lefebvre/) 

Associate

### Margaret Klassen

I bring an analytical and compassionate approach with the aim to resolve my client's legal challenges efficiently and effectively.

Margaret brings a keen analytical mind to the group, with a strong foundation in the court system from seven years at the Superior Court of Justice before joining the firm. She earned her law degree from Western University and was called to the Ontario bar in 2024.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/margaret-klassen/) 

   Recognition

## A defence practice with a record

Tier 1

Recognized in **Best Lawyers: Best Law Firms in Canada** for Insurance Law (2025 and 2026).

60+

Reported decisions shaping Canadian **tort and insurance** jurisprudence, led by Chris Morrison.

Since 2018

Jim Davidson named in **Best Lawyers in Canada** for Insurance Law and Personal Injury Litigation.

   Questions From Insurers and Counsel

## Frequently asked questions

  What insurance lines does the group defend?We defend across personal and commercial lines: general and commercial liability, motor vehicle and bodily injury, occupiers' liability, fire and property loss, construction defects and wrap-up, product liability, professional negligence, environmental, cyber and privacy, and class proceedings. We also prosecute subrogated claims on behalf of insurers.

   Can you give a coverage opinion before a claim is issued?Yes. Chris Morrison is regularly consulted by insurers and other lawyers on coverage, including uninsured and underinsured losses. We provide practical, timely coverage opinions written so a claims professional can act on them.

   If the case is appealed, who argues it?We do. Appeals are run in-house by the same group, through the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal for Ontario and, where necessary, the Supreme Court of Canada. Chris Morrison leads the firm's appellate work.

   Do you act for both insurers and individuals, and how do you manage conflicts?Across the firm, our lawyers act on both sides of insurance disputes, which sharpens the defence strategy we bring to an insurer's file. Conflicts are screened at intake, and we maintain clear lines of communication with our insurance clients on every file.

   Where are you located, and do you cover all of Ontario?We act from offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville, and handle cases across the province.

   How do we refer a file or open a new matter?Contact Jim Davidson or Chris Morrison directly. We will clear conflicts, confirm the scope of the retainer, and give you an early read on the file.

   Work With the Insurance Group

## Send us the file

Whether you need a coverage opinion, defence counsel on a matter with real exposure, or an appeal argued by counsel who has been there before, the insurance group at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is ready to act. Tell us what you are facing and we will give you a straight assessment.

 [Discuss a new matter](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Huntsville Personal Injury and Insurance Lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/huntsville-lawyers/)

**Published:** June 22, 2026
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · Huntsville Office

# Huntsville Personal Injury and Insurance Lawyers

Serving Huntsville, Muskoka and the surrounding region

Local litigators with the resources of a recognized civil litigation firm behind them. From our Huntsville office, we act in **personal injury, municipal liability, title insurance, construction negligence, real estate negligence and insurance claims.**

 [Request a Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call (705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740) 

Free initial consultation · 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville · We respond within one business day

  - Certified Specialists in Civil Litigation
- Best Lawyers in Canada since 2018
- President, Muskoka Law Association
- Free initial consultation

  A Muskoka practice with firm-wide strength

## Litigation lawyers rooted in Huntsville

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP has built a genuine litigation practice in Muskoka, not a satellite office. Our Huntsville lawyers live and work in the region, appear regularly at the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and draw on the full resources of a firm recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada.

The office is led by [David Morin](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/), the firm's Managing Partner and a Lexpert-ranked civil litigator, and [Peter Reinitzer](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer/), the current [President of the Muskoka Law Association](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer-appointed-president-of-the-muskoka-law-association/). Together they act for people and property owners across cottage country in personal injury, municipal liability, title insurance, real estate negligence and insurance disputes.

   How we help in Muskoka

## Our Huntsville practice areas

Six areas where our Huntsville lawyers act most often for clients in Huntsville, the Muskoka Lakes and the surrounding townships.

### Personal Injury

Serious injuries from collisions on Highway 11 and rural roads, as well as boating, ATV, off-road and snowmobile accidents and falls. We act for injured people and families across the region.

 [Personal injury →](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) 

### Municipal Liability

Claims involving township roads, maintenance and building inspection. Our lawyers have argued leading municipal appeals at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, including matters against Muskoka-area townships.

 [Municipal litigation →](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-municipal-litigation/) 

### Construction Negligence

Claims arising from defective design and construction of residential property, including building-code and renovation disputes. A growing part of our practice, with files from across Ontario, not only Muskoka.

 [Construction negligence →](https://dcmlaw.ca/no-damages-beyond-buyer-beware-residential-renovations-the-building-code-and-construction-negligence/) 

### Real Estate Negligence

Claims arising from errors by real estate professionals and advisors in property transactions, a frequent issue in a region built on cottage and recreational property.

### Title Insurance

Title insurance coverage disputes and claims, an area where the firm has a recognized depth of experience, from building-permit and zoning issues to policy exclusions.

 [Title insurance →](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-importance-of-title-insurance-in-real-estate-transactions/) 

### Insurance Claims

Disputes with insurers over denied or underpaid claims, including property loss, disability and coverage fights. We act for policyholders, not insurers.

 [Insurance law →](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/) 

   The people you will work with

## Your Huntsville team

Managing Partner

### David Morin

A civil litigator focused on municipal liability, personal injury and insurance. David has acted for property owners in leading municipal liability appeals at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, including *Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)* and *Tokarz v Selwyn (Township)*. He is Lexpert-ranked (2025) and a past president of the Muskoka Law Association.

 [David's profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/) 

Partner

### Peter Reinitzer

A Huntsville litigator in municipal, insurance, personal injury and property claims, with a strong record at trial and on appeal. Peter appears regularly at the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal, and is the current President of the Muskoka Law Association.

 [Peter's profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer/) 

### The Huntsville support team

David and Peter work with an experienced group of law clerks, a paralegal and a legal assistant who are your day-to-day points of contact: Emma Burton, Cydney Jones, Helen Pozdeev and Tania Quinlan.

   Where we act

## Serving Huntsville and the Muskoka region

Cottage country brings its own kinds of disputes: highway and off-road collisions, boating and snowmobile injuries, township road and building-inspection claims, and the title and property issues that come with recreational real estate. Our Huntsville office acts for clients throughout the region, including:

We also act for clients across Ontario in construction and design-defect claims, an area where the firm now takes files well beyond Muskoka.

- Huntsville
- Bracebridge
- Gravenhurst
- Port Carling
- Muskoka Lakes
- Lake of Bays
- Baysville
- Dwight
- Port Sydney
- Bala
- Burk's Falls
- Sundridge
- Almaguin Highlands
- Parry Sound area

   Why local clients trust us

## Local presence, recognized experience

### Rooted in Muskoka

A working Huntsville office led by partners who are active in the local bar, including the current and a past president of the Muskoka Law Association.

### Recognized experience

Lawyers certified as Specialists in Civil Litigation by the Law Society of Ontario, and recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada since 2018.

### Trial and appeal record

Our Huntsville lawyers appear regularly at the Superior Court of Justice and have argued leading appeals at the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

[Meet the full team](https://dcmlaw.ca/our-team/) or read recent commentary in our [title insurance series](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-importance-of-title-insurance-in-real-estate-transactions/).

   How we work

## Start with a free consultation

Your initial consultation is always free. For personal injury and disability claims, we act on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay no legal fees unless we win. For other matters, we will explain how fees work for your specific situation before you commit to anything.

Call our Huntsville office at [(705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740) or use the form below.

   Common questions

## Huntsville office: FAQ

  Do you have a real office in Huntsville?Yes. Our Huntsville office is at 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, and it is staffed by lawyers who live and work in the region, not a mailbox or a satellite. You can meet with us in person.

   What areas do you serve?We act for clients throughout Muskoka and the surrounding region, including Huntsville, Bracebridge, Gravenhurst, the Muskoka Lakes, Lake of Bays, the Almaguin Highlands and the Parry Sound area, as well as seasonal residents whose claims arise here.

   What kinds of cases does the Huntsville office handle?Our main areas are personal injury, municipal liability, construction negligence, title insurance, real estate negligence and insurance claims. If you are not certain whether your situation fits, contact us and we will tell you honestly whether we can help.

   What does it cost?The initial consultation is free. Personal injury and disability claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, so you pay no fees unless we win. For other types of matters, we will explain the fee arrangement up front.

   Can you help if my accident happened at the cottage but I live in the city?Often, yes. Many of our clients are seasonal residents or visitors whose injury, property or insurance issue arose in Muskoka. Where your claim belongs depends on the facts, and we can advise you on that.

   Do you only take cases in the Muskoka region?No. Our Huntsville office is rooted in Muskoka, but the firm acts province-wide. In construction and design-defect claims in particular, we take files from across Ontario, including the Toronto, Ottawa and southwestern regions.

   Free consultation

## Talk to our Huntsville office

Tell us what happened below, with as much detail as you can. A lawyer from our Huntsville office will review it and respond within one business day. There is no cost and no obligation.

 [☎ (705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740) 

  Speak with our Huntsville office

## Injured, or in a dispute in Muskoka? Let's talk.

Tell us what happened and we will respond within one business day. Our Huntsville office serves clients throughout Muskoka and the surrounding region, and the initial consultation is always free.

 [Request a Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call (705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740) 

### Huntsville (This Office)

322 Muskoka Road 3 North
Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
[(705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740)

### Toronto

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
[(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)

### Bowmanville

222 King Street East, Suite 207
Bowmanville, ON L1C 1P6
[(289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301)

---

### [Bowmanville Personal Injury Lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/bowmanville-personal-injury-lawyers/)

**Published:** June 22, 2026
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · Bowmanville Office

# Bowmanville Personal Injury Lawyers

Serving Bowmanville, Clarington and Durham Region

Seriously injured in or around Durham Region? **You pay no fee unless we win.** Our Bowmanville office is led by a personal injury lawyer with more than 40 years representing seriously and catastrophically injured clients.

 [Request a Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call (289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301) 

Free consultation · 222 King Street East, Suite 207, Bowmanville · We respond within one business day

  - Best Lawyers in Canada
- 40+ years of personal injury experience
- Serious and catastrophic injury
- No fee unless we win

  A personal injury practice rooted in Durham

## Personal injury lawyers in Bowmanville

When a serious injury turns your life upside down, you want a lawyer who knows the community and has the experience to take on the insurers. From our Bowmanville office, we act for injured people and their families across Clarington and Durham Region, backed by the full resources of a firm recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada.

The office is led by [Ron Strike](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike/), a plaintiff-side personal injury lawyer with more than 40 years representing seriously and catastrophically injured clients, and [Joel Cormier](https://dcmlaw.ca/joel-cormier/), a partner with extensive personal injury trial and appeal experience. Learn more about our [personal injury practice](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/), or tell us what happened and we will let you know where you stand, at no cost.

   How we can help

## Personal injury cases we handle

We act for people seriously hurt in all kinds of accidents across Durham Region, from straightforward claims to the most serious and catastrophic injuries.

### Car and auto accidents

Car, truck, motorcycle, pedestrian and cycling collisions, and no-fault accident benefits claims.

### Slip, trip and falls

Falls on ice, snow, wet floors or hazards at a business, on a sidewalk, or in an apartment, hospital or nursing home.

### Serious and catastrophic injury

Traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries, chronic pain and other life-altering harm requiring long-term care.

### Fatal accidents

Claims brought by families who have lost a loved one because of someone else's negligence.

### Long-term disability

Short and long-term disability benefits that an insurer has denied or cut off, with the goal of reinstatement or a settlement.

### Not sure where you fit?

If your situation does not fit neatly into one box, tell us what happened. We will let you know whether we can help, at no cost.

[Explore our personal injury practice →](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/)

   The people you will work with

## Your Bowmanville team

Counsel

### Ron Strike

A plaintiff-side personal injury lawyer with more than 40 years representing seriously and catastrophically injured clients. Called to the bar in 1983, Ron practises exclusively in personal injury, with a focus on catastrophic injury from motor vehicle collisions. He has been recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada for Personal Injury Litigation since 2024 and is a member of the Durham Region Law Association.

 [Ron's profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike/) 

Partner

### Joel Cormier

A litigator with extensive experience at trial and on appeal, and a personal injury practice recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada for Personal Injury Litigation since 2023. Joel is known for a direct, long-term approach with the people and businesses he represents.

 [Joel's profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/joel-cormier/) 

### Your principal point of contact

Ron and Joel work with Christine Marchment, the principal law clerk in our Bowmanville office, who is often your first and most frequent point of contact as your claim moves forward.

   A proven track record

## Results our firm has recovered for injured clients

Our lawyers have recovered millions for injured people, including in serious and hard-fought cases where the insurer contested the claim.

$2.4 MillionFor a client who suffered a traumatic brain injury in a crash caused by icy road conditions (2024).

$1.37 MillionFor a pedestrian who suffered two traumatic brain injuries in two separate collisions (2023).

$700,000For a client with soft-tissue injuries and PTSD from two car accidents; damages were hotly contested (2023).

$450,000For a teacher who developed chronic pain after being struck by a driver who ran a red light (2024).

$400,000For a client who suffered a concussion and had to change careers as a result (2023).

$365,000For a pedestrian who suffered a broken knee after being struck by a delivery driver (2024).

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Amounts recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts of each individual case.

   Where we act

## Serving Bowmanville, Clarington and Durham Region

Our Bowmanville office acts for injured people throughout Clarington, Durham Region and the surrounding communities, including:

- Bowmanville
- Clarington
- Courtice
- Newcastle
- Orono
- Oshawa
- Whitby
- Ajax
- Pickering
- Port Perry
- Uxbridge
- Northumberland County
 
We are proud to be part of this community. The Strike family has long supported local causes, including a [$500,000 donation to the Bowmanville Hospital Foundation](https://dcmlaw.ca/strike-family-donates-500000-to-the-bowmanville-hospital-foundation/).

   No fee unless we win

## Quality representation, whatever your situation

We believe everyone should have access to strong legal representation after a serious injury, regardless of their financial situation. That is why we offer competitive, sliding-scale contingency fee representation for personal injury claims.

- You pay us nothing unless we win your case
- The earlier your case settles, the less you pay in legal fees
- We advance the cost of building your case
- If we do not win, you owe us nothing, not even disbursements

   Common questions

## Bowmanville office: FAQ

  Do you have an office in Bowmanville?Yes. Our Bowmanville office is at 222 King Street East, Suite 207, and it is led by lawyers who serve the Durham community. You can meet with us in person to discuss your claim.

   What areas do you serve?We act for injured clients throughout Clarington and Durham Region and the surrounding area, including Bowmanville, Courtice, Newcastle, Oshawa, Whitby, Ajax, Pickering, Port Perry and Northumberland County.

   What does it cost to hire a personal injury lawyer?Your initial consultation is free. We act on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay no legal fees unless we recover compensation for you. If we do not win, you do not owe us fees or disbursements.

   How long do I have to make a claim?In Ontario you generally have two years to start a lawsuit, but several deadlines are much shorter. Accident benefit claims, slip and falls on snow or ice, and denied disability claims each carry their own early notice or limitation rules, some as short as a matter of days, so it is best to get advice as soon as possible.

   What kinds of injuries do you take on?We act on the full range of personal injury claims, from soft-tissue and orthopedic injuries to the most serious and catastrophic cases, including traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries. If you are not sure whether you have a claim, ask us.

   Free consultation

## Talk to our Bowmanville office

Tell us what happened below, with as much detail as you can. A lawyer from our Bowmanville office will review it and respond within one business day. There is no cost and no obligation.

 [☎ (289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301) 

  Speak with our Bowmanville office

## Injured in Durham Region? Let's talk.

Tell us what happened and we will respond within one business day. Our Bowmanville office serves injured clients throughout Clarington and Durham Region, and the consultation is always free.

 [Request a Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call (289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301) 

### Bowmanville (This Office)

222 King Street East, Suite 207
Bowmanville, ON L1C 1P6
[(289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301)

### Toronto

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
[(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)

### Huntsville

322 Muskoka Road 3 North
Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
[(705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740)

---

### [Personal Injury Lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/personal-injury-lawyers/)

**Published:** July 22, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Serious Injury · Insurance · Medical Negligence

# Personal Injury Lawyers

Serving Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville, and clients across Ontario

Seriously injured, or fighting an insurer that will not pay? **You pay no fee unless we win.** Speak with an experienced personal injury lawyer and Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation about the compensation you deserve.

 [Request a Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

Free consultation · We respond within one business day · No fee unless we win

  - Certified Specialists in Civil Litigation
- Best Lawyers in Canada since 2018
- Tier 1, Best Law Firms in Canada 2026
- No fee unless we win

  How we can help

## Whatever happened, we handle it

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP represents people across Ontario, from our offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville, who have been seriously hurt or wrongly denied benefits. If you are not sure your situation fits, tell us what happened and we will let you know where you stand, at no cost.

### Car and auto accidents

Car, truck, motorcycle, pedestrian, cycling and off-road collisions, and no-fault accident benefits claims.

### Slip, trip and falls

Falls on ice, snow, wet floors or hazards at a business, on a sidewalk, or in an apartment, hospital or nursing home.

### Long-term disability

Short and long-term disability benefits that an insurer has denied or cut off, with the goal of reinstatement or a settlement.

### Serious and catastrophic injury

Traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, chronic pain and other life-altering harm requiring long-term care.

### Fatal accidents

Claims brought by families who have lost a loved one because of someone else's negligence.

### Medical negligence

Serious harm caused by substandard medical care, including birth injuries, delayed or missed diagnosis and surgical errors.

 [Tell us what happened](#request-free-consultation) 

   Free consultation

## Find out where you stand, at no cost

Tell us what happened below, with as much detail as you can. An experienced personal injury lawyer will review it and respond within one business day. There is no cost and no obligation.

 [☎ 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

   A proven track record

## Results we have recovered for injured clients

Across car accidents, falls, disability claims and other serious cases, our lawyers have recovered millions for injured people and their families, including many matters where the insurer vigorously contested the claim.

$2.4 MillionFor a client who suffered a traumatic brain injury in a crash caused by icy road conditions (2024).

$1.37 MillionFor a pedestrian who suffered two traumatic brain injuries in two separate collisions (2023).

$700,000For a client with soft-tissue injuries and PTSD from two car accidents; damages were hotly contested (2023).

$195,000For a homeowner who suffered carbon monoxide poisoning caused by a faulty furnace installation (2024).

$130,000For a teacher whose denied long-term disability claim settled shortly after litigation began (2023).

$125,000For a client who sustained orthopedic injuries in a fall in a mall; liability was vigorously contested (2023).

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Amounts recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts of each individual case.

   Why clients trust us

## Recognized by the profession

### Certified Specialists

We have lawyers certified as Specialists in Civil Litigation by the Law Society of Ontario, a designation granted to lawyers who meet established standards of experience and knowledge.

### Best Lawyers in Canada

Since 2018, our lawyers have been recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada for their work in Insurance Law, Medical Negligence and Personal Injury Litigation.

### Tier 1 firm

Ranked Tier 1 in Best Law Firms in Canada 2026, with a team that brings courtroom experience to every file.

Hear from former clients in their own words on our [testimonials page](https://dcmlaw.ca/testimonials/), or [meet the lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/our-team/) who would handle your case.

   No fee unless we win

## Quality representation, whatever your situation

We believe everyone should have access to strong legal representation after a serious injury or a denied claim, regardless of their financial situation. That is why we offer competitive, sliding-scale contingency fee representation.

- You pay us nothing unless we win your case
- The earlier your case settles, the less you pay in legal fees
- We advance the cost of building your case
- If we do not win, you owe us nothing, not even disbursements

   Common questions

## Personal injury claims in Ontario: FAQ

  What types of personal injury cases do you handle?We act for people injured in car and other motor vehicle accidents, slip, trip and falls, and other accidents, as well as those with serious and catastrophic injuries, families in fatal accident claims, people whose disability benefits have been denied, and victims of medical negligence. If you are not sure whether you have a claim, ask us.

   What does it cost to hire a personal injury lawyer?Your initial consultation is free. We act on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay no legal fees unless we recover compensation for you. If we do not win, you do not owe us fees or disbursements.

   How long do I have to make a claim?In Ontario you generally have two years to start a lawsuit, but several deadlines are much shorter. Accident benefit claims, slip and falls on snow or ice, and denied disability claims each carry their own early notice or limitation rules, some as short as a matter of days. Because of that, it is best to get advice as soon as possible.

   How do I know if I have a case?The two key questions are usually whether someone else's negligence caused your injury, and what losses you have suffered as a result. We assess both at no cost and tell you honestly where you stand.

   How soon will I hear back?Send us the details using the form above or call us, and an experienced personal injury lawyer will review your situation and respond within one business day.

   Speak with our team

## Injured? Find out where you stand.

Tell us what happened and we will respond within one business day. With offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville, we act for injured clients across Ontario, and the consultation is always free.

 [Request a Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

### Toronto (Main Office)

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
[(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)

### Huntsville

322 Muskoka Road 3 North
Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
[(705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740)

### Bowmanville

222 King Street East, Suite 207
Bowmanville, ON L1C 1P6
[(289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301)

---

### [Long Term Disability Insurance Lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/long-term-disability-insurance-lawyers/)

**Published:** June 25, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Insurance Law · Long-Term Disability

# Long-Term Disability Lawyer in Toronto

Has your long-term disability claim been denied or cut off? **You pay no fee unless we win.** Speak with an experienced disability insurance lawyer and Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation about getting your benefits reinstated.

 [Request a Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

Free consultation · We respond within one business day · Offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville

  - Certified Specialists in Civil Litigation
- Best Lawyers in Canada since 2018
- Tier 1, Best Law Firms in Canada 2026
- No fee unless we win

  Denied or terminated LTD benefits?

## When the insurer stops paying, you do not have to accept it

When illness or injury keeps you from working, long-term disability benefits are what you count on to pay the bills. Insurers deny and terminate valid claims every day, often saying the medical evidence is not enough or that you are able to work. A denial is not the end of the road.

The disability insurance lawyers of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP act for people across Toronto and the GTA whose short-term or long-term disability benefits have been denied or cut off, with the goal of getting those benefits reinstated or recovering a fair lump-sum settlement. This is part of our [insurance law practice](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/), and our guide to [reinstating long-term disability benefits](https://dcmlaw.ca/reinstating-long-term-disability-benefits-a-comprehensive-guide/) is a useful place to start.

   Why valid claims get denied

## Common reasons insurers deny and terminate benefits

A denial letter is not the same as a final answer, and many of the reasons insurers give do not hold up once they are properly challenged.

### "Insufficient" medical evidence

The insurer claims your records do not prove you cannot work, even where your treating doctors disagree.

### "You can work"

The insurer decides you are capable of some form of work despite your condition and the limits it imposes.

### Change of definition at 24 months

Benefits stop when the policy's test shifts from your own occupation to any occupation (see below).

### Surveillance and insurer exams

The insurer relies on surveillance or an insurer-selected medical examiner to dispute your limitations.

### Missed deadlines and paperwork

Technical denials based on proof-of-claim timelines or missing forms, which can sometimes be overcome.

### Mental health and chronic pain

Conditions the insurer treats as "subjective", such as depression, anxiety, chronic pain and fatigue, are denied despite real impairment.

   A turning point most people are not warned about

## "Own occupation" versus "any occupation"

Most group disability policies change the test for disability partway through a claim, and a large share of terminations happen right at that changeover, usually around the 24-month mark.

Roughly the first 24 months

### Own occupation

During the first period, most policies ask whether your condition prevents you from doing your own job, the work you were actually doing when you became disabled. This is usually the easier test to meet.

After the change

### Any occupation

After about two years, the test typically shifts to whether you can do any occupation for which you are reasonably suited by your education, training and experience. Insurers often terminate benefits at this point, which makes it a critical time to get advice and updated medical evidence.

   Do not let the clock run out

## You may have less time than you think

In Ontario, you generally have two years to start a lawsuit, and that clock often begins running from the date your claim is denied. Internal appeals to the insurer do not necessarily pause it. Many people lose the right to sue because they spend months, or longer, in an appeal process while the deadline quietly passes.

Get the denial in writing and speak with a lawyer early, so the deadline that applies to your specific policy and facts can be properly assessed before it is too late.

   How we help

## What we do for disability clients

We take the fight to the insurer so you can focus on your health.

We review your denial letter and the policy, request your full claim file from the insurer (including adjuster notes, internal medical reviews and any surveillance), and build function-focused medical evidence that addresses the insurer's stated reasons rather than just your diagnosis. We then deal with the insurer directly and, where needed, commence litigation, with the aim of reinstating your benefits and recovering arrears, or negotiating a fair lump-sum settlement. We also act on denied short-term disability claims and assist with CPP disability (CPP-D) applications.

   Working with us

## How your claim begins

1### Contact a lawyer

Tell us what happened using the form below or by phone, and send us your denial letter if you have it. There is no cost and no obligation.

2### Free consultation

An experienced disability insurance lawyer reviews your denial and your policy, explains your options, and assesses the strength of your claim.

3### We pursue your claim

If we act for you, we protect the deadlines, deal with the insurer, and pursue reinstatement and arrears or a fair settlement.

   A proven track record

## Results for disability clients

Our lawyers have recovered benefits and compensation for people whose disability claims were wrongly denied, often without the need for a lengthy trial.

$130,000For a teacher near retirement age who left work due to disability. The claim was initially denied and settled shortly after litigation began (2023).

Reinstated + $97,000For a professional whose long-term disability claim was reinstated, together with $97,000 in arrears and legal costs, shortly after litigation began (2023).

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Amounts recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts of each individual case.

   Why clients trust us

## Recognized by the profession

### Certified Specialists

We have lawyers certified as Specialists in Civil Litigation by the Law Society of Ontario, a designation granted to lawyers who meet established standards of experience and knowledge.

### Best Lawyers in Canada

Since 2018, our lawyers have been recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada for their work in Insurance Law, Medical Negligence and Personal Injury Litigation.

### Tier 1 firm

Ranked Tier 1 in Best Law Firms in Canada 2026, with a team that brings courtroom experience to every file.

Hear from former clients in their own words on our [testimonials page](https://dcmlaw.ca/testimonials/), or [meet the lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/our-team/) who would handle your case.

   No fee unless we win

## Quality representation when you can least afford a fight

A denial of benefits is financially stressful, which is exactly when you should not have to worry about legal bills. We offer competitive, sliding-scale contingency fee representation for long-term disability claims.

- You pay us nothing unless we win your case
- The earlier your case settles, the less you pay in legal fees
- We advance the cost of building your case
- If we do not win, you owe us nothing, not even disbursements

   Common questions

## Long-term disability claims in Ontario: FAQ

  How long do I have to sue after my LTD claim is denied?In Ontario the general limitation period is two years, and for a denied disability claim the clock often starts running from the date of the denial. Importantly, appealing internally to the insurer does not necessarily pause that deadline. Because the exact start date depends on your policy and the wording of the insurer's letters, it is best to have it assessed early rather than risk losing the right to sue.

   Should I appeal the insurer's decision or take legal action?Internal appeals are run by the same insurer that denied you and are frequently denied again. They can occasionally fix a genuine gap in the evidence, but relying on them can also run down your two-year deadline. A lawyer can advise whether an appeal makes sense in your case or whether starting a claim is the better route, and can make sure the deadline is protected either way.

   My benefits were approved, then stopped after about two years. Why?Most group policies change the test for disability at around the 24-month mark, from whether you can do your own occupation to whether you can do any occupation you are reasonably suited to. Insurers often terminate benefits at that changeover. A termination at this stage can be challenged with the right medical and vocational evidence.

   What does it cost to hire a disability lawyer?Your initial consultation is free. We act on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay no legal fees unless we recover benefits or compensation for you. If we do not win, you do not owe us fees or disbursements.

   What conditions qualify for long-term disability?It is not about the label of your condition but whether it prevents you from working under your policy's definition of disability. We act on claims involving physical injuries and illnesses as well as mental health conditions, chronic pain and fatigue, which insurers often wrongly dismiss as "subjective".

   Will CPP disability affect my LTD benefits?Many policies require you to apply for CPP disability (CPP-D). If you are approved, CPP-D usually offsets, or reduces, your LTD payment so the two are coordinated rather than paid in full together. We can help with the CPP-D application as well as the LTD claim.

   Free consultation

## Talk to a Toronto disability insurance lawyer

Tell us about your claim and your denial below, with as much detail as you can. We will respond within one business day. There is no cost and no obligation.

 [☎ 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

  Speak with our team

## Denied disability benefits? Let's talk.

Send us your denial letter and tell us what happened, and we will respond within one business day. With offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville, we act for disability clients across Ontario, and the consultation is always free.

 [Request a Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

### Toronto (Main Office)

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
[(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)

### Huntsville

322 Muskoka Road 3 North
Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
[(705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740)

### Bowmanville

222 King Street East, Suite 207
Bowmanville, ON L1C 1P6
[(289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301)

---

### [Slip and Fall Lawyers Toronto](https://dcmlaw.ca/slip-and-fall-lawyer-toronto/)

**Published:** June 25, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Personal Injury · Slip and Fall Claims

# Slip and Fall Lawyer in Toronto

Hurt in a fall on someone else's property in Toronto or the GTA? **You pay no fee unless we win.** Speak with an experienced personal injury lawyer and Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation, and act before strict notice deadlines pass.

 [Request a Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

Free consultation · We respond within one business day · Offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville

  - Certified Specialists in Civil Litigation
- Best Lawyers in Canada since 2018
- Tier 1, Best Law Firms in Canada 2026
- No fee unless we win

  Injured in a slip and fall in Toronto?

## When a property owner's carelessness causes a serious injury

A fall on an icy walkway, a wet store floor or a poorly maintained stairwell can cause a fracture, a head injury or chronic pain that lasts for years. Under Ontario's Occupiers' Liability Act, the people who own and control a property have a duty to take reasonable care to keep visitors reasonably safe. When they fail, and you are hurt as a result, you may be entitled to compensation.

The personal injury lawyers of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP act for people across Toronto and the GTA in serious slip, trip and fall claims. We also represent injured people in [car accidents](https://dcmlaw.ca/car-accident-lawyer-toronto/) and the full range of [personal injury litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/). A slip and fall is not automatically someone else's fault, so the real question is whether the occupier did what was reasonable in the circumstances, and that is what we assess.

   Why acting quickly matters

## Slip and fall claims have strict deadlines

Slip and fall claims carry deadlines that are far shorter than most people expect, and missing one can end a claim before it begins. This is the single biggest reason to speak with a lawyer in the days after a fall, not the weeks or months.

 60 days### Snow or ice on private property

If your fall was caused by snow or ice on private or commercial premises, written notice must be served on the occupier and any snow-removal contractor within 60 days, under section 6.1 of the Occupiers' Liability Act.

 10 days### City sidewalks and municipal property

If you fell on a City of Toronto sidewalk or other municipal property, a much shorter written notice period applies, generally 10 days. These claims are technical and strictly enforced.

 2 years### To start your lawsuit

Separately, you generally have two years from the date of the fall to start a lawsuit. Giving notice is not the same as starting a claim, so both timelines must be met.

Because the clock can start the day you fall, it is worth getting advice early. Our note on [why hiring a lawyer is critical after a slip and fall](https://dcmlaw.ca/dont-slip-up-why-hiring-a-lawyer-is-critical-after-a-slip-and-fall/) explains how these deadlines work in practice.

   Where falls happen

## The slip and fall cases we take on

We act for people injured by hazards a property owner should have addressed, including the most serious cases involving traumatic brain injury, fractures, chronic pain and spinal cord injuries.

### Ice and snow

Falls on unsalted, uncleared or poorly maintained walkways, entrances and parking lots, the most common winter claims in Toronto.

### Wet and slippery floors

Falls in grocery stores, malls, restaurants and other businesses caused by spills, freshly washed floors or tracked-in water without warning.

### Stairs and escalators

Falls on defective, poorly lit or improperly maintained stairs, handrails and escalators.

### Parking lots and walkways

Trips on potholes, broken pavement, uneven surfaces and unmarked changes in level.

### Apartments and condos

Falls in common areas, lobbies, hallways and stairwells that a landlord or property manager failed to maintain.

### Hospitals and nursing homes

Falls suffered by patients and residents where reasonable care for their safety was not taken.

   First steps

## What to do after a slip and fall

Report the fall to the property owner, manager or staff, and ask that an incident report be made. Photograph the hazard right away, because snow, ice and spills disappear within hours: take wide shots and close-ups of what caused the fall, and a photo of the footwear you were wearing. Get the names and contact details of anyone who saw it. See a doctor even if your injuries seem minor, so they are documented from the start, and keep the clothing and footwear you had on. Then get legal advice promptly, because the notice clock may already be running.

[Read the full checklist: 7 steps to take after a slip and fall accident in Ontario →](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-steps-to-take-after-a-slip-and-fall-accident-in-ontario/)

   What you may recover

## Compensation in a slip and fall claim

Where an occupier is found liable, the compensation available is meant to put you back in the position you would have been in had the fall not happened.

Depending on the injury, that can include damages for pain and suffering, past and future loss of income, the cost of medical care, rehabilitation and assistive devices, attendant care and housekeeping, and out-of-pocket expenses. In the most serious cases involving long-term or catastrophic injury, the cost of future care can be substantial. We work with medical and economic experts to document the full extent of your losses rather than settling for an insurer's first number.

   Working with us

## How your claim begins

1### Contact a lawyer

Tell us what happened using the form below or by phone. There is no cost and no obligation to speak with us.

2### Free consultation

An experienced personal injury lawyer reviews your situation, explains your options, and assesses the value of your case.

3### Start your claim

If we act for you, we preserve the deadlines, deal with the insurers, and pursue the compensation you deserve.

   A proven track record

## Results in slip and fall and premises claims

Our lawyers have recovered compensation for people seriously injured by unsafe premises, including cases where the property owner vigorously contested liability.

$195,000For a homeowner who suffered carbon monoxide poisoning caused by a faulty furnace installation (2024).

$140,000For a transplant patient who injured their back after a fall in hospital (2023).

$125,000For a grandmother who sustained orthopedic injuries after a fall in a mall food court; liability was vigorously contested (2023).

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Amounts recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts of each individual case.

   Why clients trust us

## Recognized by the profession

### Certified Specialists

We have lawyers certified as Specialists in Civil Litigation by the Law Society of Ontario, a designation granted to lawyers who meet established standards of experience and knowledge.

### Best Lawyers in Canada

Since 2018, our lawyers have been recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada for their work in Insurance Law, Medical Negligence and Personal Injury Litigation.

### Tier 1 firm

Ranked Tier 1 in Best Law Firms in Canada 2026, with a team that brings courtroom experience to every file.

Hear from former clients in their own words on our [testimonials page](https://dcmlaw.ca/testimonials/), or [meet the lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/our-team/) who would handle your case.

   No fee unless we win

## Quality representation, whatever your situation

We believe everyone should have access to strong legal representation after a serious fall, regardless of their financial situation. That is why we offer competitive, sliding-scale contingency fee representation for personal injury claims.

- You pay us nothing unless we win your case
- The earlier your case settles, the less you pay in legal fees
- We advance the cost of building your case
- If we do not win, you owe us nothing, not even disbursements

   Common questions

## Slip and fall claims in Ontario: FAQ

  How long do I have to make a slip and fall claim in Ontario?It depends on where and how you fell. If your fall was caused by snow or ice on private or commercial property, written notice must usually be served within 60 days under the Occupiers' Liability Act. If you fell on a City of Toronto sidewalk or other municipal property, a much shorter notice period, generally 10 days, applies. Separately, you generally have two years to start a lawsuit. Because the shortest of these can expire quickly, it is best to get advice within days of a fall.

   Do I actually have a case?Not every fall leads to a claim. The question is whether the occupier failed to take reasonable care to keep the property safe, and whether that failure caused your injury. A genuine hazard that the owner knew about or should have addressed, combined with a real injury, is the foundation of a claim. We assess the strength of your case at no cost.

   What does it cost to hire a slip and fall lawyer?Your initial consultation is free. We act for personal injury clients on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay no legal fees unless we recover compensation for you. If we do not win, you do not owe us fees or disbursements.

   Can I still claim if I was partly at fault?Often, yes. Ontario applies contributory negligence, so if you were partly responsible, for example because of your footwear or because a hazard was obvious, that may reduce your recovery rather than eliminate it. We assess how fault is likely to be apportioned on your facts.

   I fell at a store. Who is responsible?It depends on who controlled and maintained the area where you fell. That may be the business, the property owner or property manager, or a contractor hired to clear snow and ice. More than one party can share responsibility. Identifying the right parties early matters, particularly for the notice deadlines, which is part of what we do.

   How long will my claim take?Every case is different. Straightforward matters can resolve relatively quickly, while serious or contested claims take longer, particularly where the full extent of an injury is still becoming clear. We explain what to expect for your situation at the outset.

   Free consultation

## Talk to a Toronto slip and fall lawyer

Tell us about your fall and injuries below, with as much detail as you can. We will respond within one business day. There is no cost and no obligation.

 [☎ 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

**\[ WPForms widget — form id 2370 — placed here, styled by the form-styles widget \]**

 Speak with our team

## Hurt in a slip and fall? Let's talk.

Tell us about your fall and injuries, and we will respond within one business day. With offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville, we act for injured clients across Ontario, and the consultation is always free.

 [Request a Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

### Toronto (Main Office)

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
[(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)

### Huntsville

322 Muskoka Road 3 North
Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
[(705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740)

### Bowmanville

222 King Street East, Suite 207
Bowmanville, ON L1C 1P6
[(289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301)

  Speak with our team

## Hurt in a slip and fall? Let's talk.

Tell us about your fall and injuries, and we will respond within one business day. With offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville, we act for injured clients across Ontario, and the consultation is always free.

 [Request a Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

### Toronto (Main Office)

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
[(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)

### Huntsville

322 Muskoka Road 3 North
Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
[(705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740)

### Bowmanville

222 King Street East, Suite 207
Bowmanville, ON L1C 1P6
[(289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301)

---

### [Car Accident Lawyer Toronto](https://dcmlaw.ca/car-accident-lawyer-toronto/)

**Published:** July 22, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Personal Injury · Motor Vehicle Accidents

# Car Accident Lawyer in Toronto

Injured in a collision in Toronto or the GTA? **You pay no fee unless we win.** Speak with an experienced personal injury lawyer and Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation about the compensation you may be owed.

 [Request a Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

Free consultation · We respond within one business day · Offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville

  - Certified Specialists in Civil Litigation
- Best Lawyers in Canada since 2018
- Tier 1, Best Law Firms in Canada 2026
- No fee unless we win

  Injured in a car accident in Toronto?

## Serious injuries deserve serious advocates

A motor vehicle collision can change your life in an instant, and the months that follow bring insurers, paperwork and deadlines at the worst possible time. The car accident lawyers of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP act for people across Toronto and the GTA who have suffered real harm in a crash, and we handle the legal side so you can focus on getting better.

We represent victims of [car, truck, motorcycle, pedestrian and cycling collisions](https://dcmlaw.ca/motor-vehicle-accident-lawyers/), including catastrophic and life-altering injuries. If you are not yet ready to call, our guide to the [7 things you need to know about car accidents in Ontario](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-car-accidents-in-ontario/) is a good place to start.

   What you may be entitled to

## Two ways an injured person can be compensated

After a collision in Ontario, there are usually two separate claims to think about. They run on different rules and very different timelines, and a misstep on either one can cost you. We pursue both where they apply.

Claim 1 · No-fault

### Accident Benefits

Ontario uses a no-fault system, which means you may claim accident benefits from an auto insurer regardless of who caused the crash. Depending on your coverage, these can include medical and rehabilitation expenses, attendant care, and income replacement. Ontario's accident benefits rules changed on July 1, 2026, so the benefits available to you depend on the policy in place. We help you apply correctly and on time.

[How to apply for accident benefits after a car accident](https://dcmlaw.ca/applying-for-accident-benefits-after-a-car-accident-in-ontario/)

Claim 2 · Against the at-fault party

### The Tort Claim

Separately, you may have a claim against the driver who caused the collision for losses that accident benefits do not fully cover: pain and suffering, past and future income loss, the cost of care, and out-of-pocket expenses. These claims are governed by strict time limits and are often contested by the insurer, which is where experienced trial counsel matters most.

[More on our personal injury litigation practice](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/)

   Experience across every kind of collision

## The cases we take on

We act for injured drivers, passengers, pedestrians and cyclists, including the most serious cases involving traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, spinal cord and orthopedic injuries, and fatalities.

### Car & truck accidents

Rear-end, intersection and highway collisions, including [trucking accidents](https://dcmlaw.ca/motor-vehicle-accident-lawyers/) and crashes caused by impaired or distracted drivers.

### Motorcycle accidents

Riders face a high risk of catastrophic injury. We pursue full compensation where another road user was at fault.

### Pedestrian knockdowns

Pedestrians struck in crosswalks, parking lots and on city streets, including liability-contested cases.

### Cycling accidents

Cyclists injured by drivers and road hazards. See our guide to [cycling laws and accidents in Toronto](https://dcmlaw.ca/biking-through-toronto-safely-navigating-laws-accidents-and-safety-measures/).

### Concussion & brain injury

From concussions to severe traumatic brain injury, including [simplified-procedure concussion claims](https://dcmlaw.ca/taking-advantage-of-simplified-procedure-in-mva-concussion-claims/).

### Catastrophic injury

Spinal cord injury, amputation, chronic pain and other life-altering harm requiring long-term care and support.

   First steps

## What to do after a car accident in Toronto

In the moments after a crash, get to safety and turn on your hazard lights. Check on anyone who is hurt and call 911 if there are injuries. Gather what you can at the scene: photos of the vehicles and road conditions, the other driver's licence and insurance details, and the names of any witnesses. In Ontario you must report a collision involving more than $2,000 in damage, and if police do not attend you generally have 24 hours to report at a Collision Reporting Centre. See a doctor even if your injuries seem minor, so they are documented from the start.

[Read the full checklist: 7 things you need to know about car accidents in Ontario →](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-car-accidents-in-ontario/)

   Working with us

## How your claim begins

1### Contact a lawyer

Tell us what happened using the form below or by phone. There is no cost and no obligation to speak with us.

2### Free consultation

An experienced personal injury lawyer reviews your situation, explains your options, and assesses the value of your case.

3### Start your claim

If we act for you, we handle the insurers, the deadlines and the litigation, and pursue the compensation you deserve.

   A proven track record

## Results we have recovered for car accident clients

Our lawyers have recovered millions for people injured in motor vehicle collisions, including many cases where liability or damages were hotly contested and we pushed the matter to the doorstep of trial.

$2.4 MillionFor a client who suffered a traumatic brain injury in a crash caused by icy road conditions (2024).

$1.37 MillionFor a pedestrian who suffered two traumatic brain injuries in two separate collisions (2023).

$700,000For a client with soft-tissue neck and back injuries and PTSD from two car accidents; damages hotly contested (2023).

$695,000For a passenger who sustained a significant head injury in a car accident (2023).

$650,000For a client driven off the road by a driver who crossed the centre line, causing a back injury and chronic pain (2023).

$450,000For a teacher whose chronic pain led to early retirement after another driver ran a red light (2024).

$400,000For a client with a serious concussion and soft-tissue injuries who had to change careers (2023).

$365,000For a pedestrian who suffered a broken knee in an accident with a delivery driver; liability highly contested (2024).

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Amounts recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts of each individual case.

   Why clients trust us

## Recognized by the profession

### Certified Specialists

We have lawyers certified as Specialists in Civil Litigation by the Law Society of Ontario, a designation granted to lawyers who meet established standards of experience and knowledge.

### Best Lawyers in Canada

Since 2018, our lawyers have been recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada for their work in Insurance Law, Medical Negligence and Personal Injury Litigation.

### Tier 1 firm

Ranked Tier 1 in Best Law Firms in Canada 2026, with a team that brings courtroom experience to every file.

Hear from former clients in their own words on our [testimonials page](https://dcmlaw.ca/testimonials/), or [meet the lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/our-team/) who would handle your case.

   No fee unless we win

## Quality representation, whatever your situation

We believe everyone should have access to strong legal representation after a serious accident, regardless of their financial situation. That is why we offer competitive, sliding-scale contingency fee representation for motor vehicle accident claims.

- You pay us nothing unless we win your case
- The earlier your case settles, the less you pay in legal fees
- A lower rate applies to no-fault accident benefits settlements
- If we do not win, you owe us nothing, not even disbursements

   Common questions

## Car accident claims in Ontario: FAQ

  How long do I have to start a car accident claim in Ontario?For a lawsuit against an at-fault driver, the general limitation period in Ontario is two years from the date of the accident, subject to the discoverability rule and certain exceptions. Accident benefit deadlines are much shorter: you generally must notify your insurer within seven days of the accident and submit your application within 30 days of receiving the forms. Because missing a deadline can end a claim before it starts, it is best to get advice early.

   What does it cost to hire a car accident lawyer?Your initial consultation is free. We act for motor vehicle accident clients on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay no legal fees unless we recover compensation for you. If we do not win, you do not owe us fees or disbursements.

   How long will my claim take?Every case is different. Straightforward matters can resolve in well under a year, while serious or contested claims take longer, particularly where the full extent of an injury is still becoming clear. We explain what to expect for your situation at the outset. For more, see our note on [how long a personal injury lawsuit takes to settle](https://dcmlaw.ca/how-long-does-a-personal-injury-lawsuit-take-to-settle/).

   Can I still claim if I was partly at fault?Often, yes. Accident benefits are available on a no-fault basis, regardless of who caused the crash. For the tort claim against another driver, Ontario applies contributory negligence, which means being partly responsible may reduce your recovery rather than eliminate it. We assess how fault is likely to be apportioned on your facts.

   Do I really need a lawyer to deal with the insurer?You are not required to hire a lawyer, but accident benefit forms are complex, deadlines are strict, and insurers do contest serious claims. For significant or catastrophic injuries in particular, experienced counsel can make a meaningful difference to what you recover.

   What if the other driver was uninsured or left the scene?You may still have options. Coverage for uninsured and unidentified motorists, and optional family protection coverage, can apply in these situations. We will review your own policy and the available coverage as part of your consultation.

   Free consultation

## Talk to a Toronto car accident lawyer

Tell us about your accident and injuries below, with as much detail as you can. We will respond within one business day. There is no cost and no obligation.

 [☎ 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

  Speak with our team

## Hurt in a car accident? Let's talk.

Provide as much detail as you can about your accident and injuries, and we will respond within one business day. With offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville, we act for injured clients across Ontario.

 [Request a Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [Call 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:+18006617606) 

### Toronto (Main Office)

220 Bay Street, Suite 1400
Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
[(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)

### Huntsville

322 Muskoka Road 3 North
Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
[(705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740)

### Bowmanville

222 King Street East, Suite 207
Bowmanville, ON L1C 1P6
[(289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301)

---

### [David Morin](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/)

**Published:** June 17, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Managing Partner

# David Morin

"Excellence matters."

A civil litigator focused on municipal liability, personal injury and insurance.

- Huntsville office
- 
 
 [Contact David](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740) 

 [Lexpert Ranked, 2025](https://www.lexpert.ca/lawyers/david-a-morin-18617) [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-morin-b0137780/) 

    ## About David Morin

David Morin is the Managing Partner of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP. His practice is civil litigation, with a particular focus on personal injury, municipal liability, product liability and professional negligence. He has acted for property owners in leading building-inspection appeals at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, including [*Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca626/2022onca626.html) and [*Tokarz v Selwyn (Township)*](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca246/2022onca246.html), and he represents seriously injured people in personal injury and insurance matters.

Beyond his own practice, David is a past president of the Muskoka Law Association and has chaired both the Audit Committee and the Paralegal Regulation Sub-Committee of the Ontario Bar Association. He is a member of the Ontario Bar Association, the Advocates' Society and the American Association for Justice.

## Practice focus

David acts across the firm's plaintiff-side and litigation work. His main areas are:

 [Municipal Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-municipal-litigation/) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-insurance-law/) 

## Notable cases

A selection of David's reported decisions. Each links to the full judgment on CanLII.

- [*Huether v Sharpe*, 2025 ONCA 140](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca140/2025onca140.html)
- [*Kramer v Ballantyne-Gaska*, 2025 ONCA 1](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2025/2025onca1/2025onca1.html)
- [*Andrade v Collins*, 2023 ONSC 6011](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc6011/2023onsc6011.html)
- [*Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)*, 2022 ONCA 626](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca626/2022onca626.html)
- [*Tokarz v Selwyn (Township)*, 2022 ONCA 246](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca246/2022onca246.html)
- [*Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)*, 2021 ONSC 533](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc533/2021onsc533.html)
- [*White v Bracebridge (Town)*, 2020 ONSC 3926](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc3926/2020onsc3926.html)
- [*White v Bracebridge (Town)*, 2020 ONSC 3060](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc3060/2020onsc3060.html)
- [*Bowman v Martineau*, 2020 ONCA 330](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2020/2020onca330/2020onca330.html)
- [*Wesley v Geneau*, 2020 ONSC 868](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc868/2020onsc868.html)
- [*Bowman v Martineau*, 2019 ONSC 1468](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc1468/2019onsc1468.html)
 
## Recognition and memberships

- Lexpert-ranked lawyer (2025)
- Past President, Muskoka Law Association
- Past Chair, Audit Committee, Ontario Bar Association
- Past Chair, Paralegal Regulation Sub-Committee, Ontario Bar Association
- Member, Ontario Bar Association; the Advocates' Society; and the American Association for Justice

  ### Contact

322 Muskoka Road 3 North
Huntsville, Ontario P1H 1C4

[(705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740)

[LinkedIn profile](https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-morin-b0137780/)

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) 

   From the blog

## Recent insights from David

Notes and commentary on recent decisions and developments.

  [![Hero banner for a law firm presenting 'Abiusi v Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company' with subtitle 'A title insurer must pay repair costs, not diminution in value' on a navy background.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/abiusi-v-lawpro.png)](https://dcmlaw.ca/lawpro-ordered-to-pay-1-1m-to-buyers-of-a-winnipeg-home-with-unpermitted-construction/)###  [ LawPRO Ordered to pay $1.1M to Buyers of a Winnipeg home with Unpermitted Construction ](https://dcmlaw.ca/lawpro-ordered-to-pay-1-1m-to-buyers-of-a-winnipeg-home-with-unpermitted-construction/) 

Does a title insurer have to pay to repair a home, or can it demolish the offending work and pay the lost value instead? In a $1.1M TitlePLUS dispute over unpermitted construction on a Winnipeg home, the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba answered (2025 MBKB 131). The decision is persuasive only in Ontario and is now under appeal.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/lawpro-ordered-to-pay-1-1m-to-buyers-of-a-winnipeg-home-with-unpermitted-construction/) 

   [![Real Estate Documents Being Signed](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/real-estate-documents-being-signed.jpg)](https://dcmlaw.ca/significant-differences-in-title-insurance-policy-wording-a-potential-cause-for-concern-for-lawyers/)###  [ Significant Differences In Title Insurance Policy Wording a Potential Cause for Concern for Lawyers ](https://dcmlaw.ca/significant-differences-in-title-insurance-policy-wording-a-potential-cause-for-concern-for-lawyers/) 

Ontario has four licensed title insurers, and unlike in the United States, no regulator standardizes what their policies say. Having acted for homeowners insured by each of them, the firm’s insurance litigation group has seen how a difference of two or three words can decide a future claim. The harder question is for the lawyers selling these policies at closing: on what basis is that choice being made?

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/significant-differences-in-title-insurance-policy-wording-a-potential-cause-for-concern-for-lawyers/) 

   [![Meeting Between Lawyer and Clients](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/meeting-between-lawyer-and-clients.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/is-your-lawyer-acting-as-an-unlicensed-insurance-agent/)###  [ Is Your Lawyer Acting as an Unlicensed Insurance Agent? ](https://dcmlaw.ca/is-your-lawyer-acting-as-an-unlicensed-insurance-agent/) 

When a real estate lawyer orders a title insurance policy for a client, are they quietly stepping into the role of an insurance agent? Read against the Insurance Act’s definition of “agent” and the fact that lawyers are not members of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario, the question is sharper than it looks, and it is one reason a homeowner should not rely on the lawyer who sold the policy to tell them whether they have a claim under it.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/is-your-lawyer-acting-as-an-unlicensed-insurance-agent/) 

    [All posts by David](https://dcmlaw.ca/author/david-morin/) 

   The Huntsville Team

## David's team

David works with an experienced group of law clerks, a paralegal and a legal assistant at the firm's Huntsville office. They are your day-to-day points of contact on a file.

Emma Burton

Paralegal

[(705) 788-3740 ext. 515](tel:+17057883740,515)

Cydney Jones

Law Clerk

[(705) 788-3740 ext. 507](tel:+17057883740,507)

Helen Pozdeev

Law Clerk

[(705) 788-3740 ext. 502](tel:+17057883740,502)

Tania Quinlan

Legal Assistant

[(705) 788-3740 ext. 503](tel:+17057883740,503)

   Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

## Work with David Morin

For a building inspection or building code dispute, a title insurance claim, or a serious injury, David and his team are ready to help. The first conversation is straightforward and without obligation.

 [Contact David](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Appellate Advocacy](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-appellate-advocacy/)

**Published:** June 11, 2026
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

Practice Areas · Appellate Advocacy

# A trial judgment is
rarely the last word.
That is where we come in.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP runs its appeals in-house, in the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada, for its own clients and for the lawyers who refer appeals to us.

 [Discuss an appeal](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194) 

Group LeadChris Morrison, Partner, with more than 60 reported decisions

CourtsCourt of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada

ReferralsAppellate counsel to plaintiff and defence lawyers

    [A different discipline](#discipline) [Who we act for](#who) [What we do](#services) [Recent results](#results) [The process](#process) [Engagement](#engagement) [The group](#team) [FAQ](#faq) 

   The Practice

Trial verdicts boldly proclaim "It's over!" Appeals whisper "Not quite." Chris Morrison, Partner and Head of Appellate Advocacy

A trial judgment can feel final, but it often is not. An error in law, a misapplied standard, a ruling that does not survive scrutiny: any of these can change the outcome on appeal, and the stakes can be higher than they were at trial. Appellate advocacy is the discipline of finding, framing and arguing those points, and of defending a hard-won judgment against the same attack.

The appellate group is led by partner [Chris Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/), with [Kathleen Lefebvre](https://dcmlaw.ca/kathleen-lefebvre/) supporting. Chris has more than sixty reported decisions and has argued appeals at every level, including the Supreme Court of Canada, with results that have become part of the established law of tort liability and insurance.

We act on both sides of an appeal, for appellants and for respondents, and we draw on the firm's depth in medical negligence, personal injury and insurance to understand the trial record an appeal turns on. We also take appeals referred by other lawyers, and we run every appeal in-house.

   Why Appeals Are Different

## An appeal is not a second trial

The most important thing to understand about an appeal is what it is not. It is not a chance to run the case again, call new evidence, or persuade a fresh judge to prefer your version of the facts. An appeal is argued on the record made at trial and, for the most part, on questions of law. That makes it a distinct craft, with its own rules, its own rhythm and its own skill set.

 ONE### The record is closed

An appeal is decided on the evidence already in the record. The work is not gathering new facts; it is mastering the record that exists and showing what the court below did with it.

 TWO### The question is legal error

Appeals succeed on identifiable error, not on disagreement with the result. Questions of law are reviewed for correctness, while findings of fact attract deference and are disturbed only for palpable and overriding error.

 THREE### The factum carries the case

Appeals are won and lost in writing. A clear, disciplined factum that frames the issues and the standard of review is the single most important document, and it is where the most careful work goes.

 FOUR### The deadlines are unforgiving

The time to appeal is short and strict, and some appeals require leave. A decision about whether and how to appeal often has to be made quickly, which is why early advice matters.

   Who We Act For

## For parties, and for counsel

Our appellate work serves two groups. The first is parties to an appeal: a client who has won a judgment and needs it defended as respondent, or one who has lost and wants the decision challenged. In both cases the clock is running from the moment the decision is released.

The second is lawyers. Appellate advocacy is a discipline of its own, and many capable trial lawyers do not run appeals themselves. We are regularly retained by plaintiff and defence counsel as appellate counsel, to argue the appeal or to act as co-counsel on the brief, including on judicial review of tribunal decisions. We are equally comfortable as lead or as support on another lawyer's file, and we keep the work in-house from the merits assessment through to oral argument.

   Appellate Services

## What we do

From the first assessment of a decision to argument before the highest courts, our work covers the full arc of an appeal. The matters we handle include the following.

 Court of Appeal### Court of Appeal for Ontario

Appeals of final orders of the Superior Court of Justice, for both appellants and respondents, across civil, personal injury, medical negligence and insurance matters.

 Divisional Court### Divisional Court appeals

Appeals that lie to the Divisional Court, including many interlocutory orders, certain final orders and statutory appeals.

 Tribunals### Judicial review

Judicial review of decisions of administrative tribunals and other decision-makers, where the right path is review rather than appeal.

 Leave### Motions for leave to appeal

Seeking and opposing leave, including leave to appeal interlocutory orders and costs orders, where leave is the gateway to the appeal.

 Supreme Court### Supreme Court of Canada

Applications for leave to appeal and appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada, including matters of national importance in tort and insurance.

 Opinions### Merits assessments and opinions

A candid written assessment of whether an appeal is worth bringing or defending, and on what grounds, before the cost is committed.

 Co-Counsel### Co-counsel and referral work

Acting as appellate counsel for plaintiff and defence lawyers who want appellate strength on the brief without giving up the file.

 Interim Relief### Stays and interim relief

Motions for a stay pending appeal and related interim relief, to preserve the position while the appeal is decided.

 At Trial### Appellate support at trial

Working alongside trial counsel to protect the record and frame issues with the appeal in mind, before any appeal is needed.

   From The Court of Appeal

## Recent results

Appellate work is measured in reported decisions. A few recent matters from the practice, with the firm's write-up of each, are below.

 BODILY INJURY### A $1.5 million jury award upheld

The Court of Appeal upheld a jury award in a TTC bus collision case. [Read the result](https://dcmlaw.ca/ontario-court-of-appeal-upholds-1-5-million-jury-award-in-ttc-bus-collision-case/).

 COSTS ON APPEAL### Nearly $1 million in costs upheld

The Court of Appeal upheld a substantial costs award following a jury trial in *Pye v Di Trapani*. [Read the result](https://dcmlaw.ca/court-of-appeal-upholds-nearly-1-million-in-costs-following-jury-trial-in-pye-v-di-trapani/).

 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE### An ER physician's appeal dismissed

In *Shaw Estate v Handler*, the Court of Appeal dismissed a physician's appeal of a judgment relating to the death of a young mother. [Read the result](https://dcmlaw.ca/shaw-estate-v-handler-court-of-appeal-dismisses-er-doctors-appeal-of-judgment-against-him-relating-to-death-of-34-year-old-mother-of-4/).

 RECENT### First reported decision of 2025

The year opened with a Court of Appeal decision released in the firm's favour. [Read the result](https://dcmlaw.ca/first-court-of-appeal-decision-released-in-2025-a-win-for-davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/).

   From Decision to Disposition

## How an appeal runs with us

Every appeal is different, but the work tends to follow the same path. Because the deadlines are short, the early steps matter most.

### Assess the merits

We start with a hard look at the decision and the record, and give you a candid view of the prospects and the realistic outcomes before any cost is committed.

### Protect the right to appeal

We identify the correct route and court, calculate the deadlines, and take the steps needed to preserve the appeal, including any leave requirement or stay.

### Master the record

We work the trial record closely, because on appeal the record is the evidence, and the detail in it is where appeals are won.

### Write the factum

We frame the issues and the standard of review in a disciplined written argument. This is the centre of gravity of any appeal.

### Argue it

We present the oral argument: the chance to meet the panel's questions directly and to carry the written case home.

### Advise on what follows

Whatever the result, we advise on the next step, whether that is a further appeal, a leave application to a higher court, or enforcement.

   Engagement

## How appellate retainers work

An appeal usually begins with a hard look at the merits. We give you a candid assessment of the prospects and the realistic outcomes before you commit to the cost of an appeal. From there, appellate work lends itself to defined scope and budgeting, because the record, the factum and the oral argument are discrete, plannable stages. We also act as co-counsel with trial lawyers who want appellate strength on the brief without giving up the file.

We act from offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville, and appear in the appellate courts and tribunals of Ontario and in the Supreme Court of Canada.

- A candid merits assessment before you commit
- Defined-scope and budgeted appellate retainers
- Co-counsel arrangements with referring lawyers
- The record, the factum and the argument as planned stages
- Every appeal run in-house, start to finish

   The Group

## The appellate group

Appeals are argued by senior counsel who have been before the highest courts, supported by a litigator with a strong command of the trial records appeals turn on.

Partner · Appellate Advocacy Lead

### Chris Morrison

Trial verdicts boldly proclaim "It's over!" Appeals whisper "Not quite."

Chris leads the firm's appellate practice and has built a 25-year career in appeals and civil litigation. He has argued multi-million-dollar civil appeals, including the largest award of general damages for wrongful death in Canadian history, and has more than sixty reported decisions, many of which have become part of the established law of tort liability and insurance. He appears in the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada, and is retained by other lawyers as appellate counsel on their files.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/) 

Associate

### Kathleen Lefebvre

My approach is grounded in delivering practical, effective solutions that get results.

Kathleen supports the appellate practice and appears regularly before the Court of Appeal for Ontario as well as the Superior Court of Justice. Her litigation and coverage background, across property and casualty, occupiers' liability, motor vehicle, product liability and construction claims, gives her a strong command of the kinds of records that come up on appeal. She holds her law degree from Queen's University and was called to the Ontario bar in 2021.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/kathleen-lefebvre/) 

   Recognition

## An appellate practice with a record

60+

Reported decisions, many now part of Canadian **tort and insurance** law, argued by Chris Morrison.

SCC & ONCA

A sustained practice in the **Court of Appeal for Ontario** and the **Supreme Court of Canada**.

In-house

Every appeal run **in-house**, with referrals accepted from plaintiff and defence counsel.

   Questions About Appeals

## Frequently asked questions

  How long do I have to appeal?The deadlines are short and strict, often as little as 30 days from the order, and they vary by the type of order and the court. Some appeals also require leave. Because a missed deadline can end an appeal before it starts, it is best to get advice immediately after the decision is released.

   Do you take appeals from cases other lawyers ran at trial?Yes. We are regularly retained by plaintiff and defence lawyers as appellate counsel, either to argue the appeal or to act as co-counsel on the brief. We run all of our appeals in-house.

   Can you tell me whether an appeal is worth bringing?Yes. Most appeals begin with a candid merits assessment. An appeal is not a retrial; it succeeds on identifiable legal error, not on disagreement with the result, and we will tell you frankly how the prospects look before you spend on it.

   What is the difference between an appeal and judicial review?An appeal challenges a decision of a court for error. Judicial review asks the Divisional Court to set aside a decision of an administrative tribunal or other decision-maker. The route matters: bringing the wrong one can be fatal to the proceeding, and we identify the correct path at the outset.

   Which courts do you appear in?The Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Divisional Court, on appeals and on judicial review, and the Supreme Court of Canada on leave applications and appeals.

   Do you act for appellants or for respondents?Both. We appeal adverse judgments and we defend judgments on appeal, across personal injury, medical negligence and insurance matters.

   Can my trial lawyer just handle the appeal?They can, but appellate advocacy is a distinct discipline built on the closed trial record, the standard of review and the written factum. Many trial counsel bring in dedicated appellate counsel for exactly that reason, and we are often that counsel.

   How quickly can you get involved?Quickly. Given the deadlines, we can assess the decision, advise on the route and the merits, and take the steps needed to protect the right to appeal without delay.

   Talk To Our Appellate Group

## Considering an appeal?

Whether you have won a judgment you need to defend, lost one you want to challenge, or you are counsel who needs appellate strength on the brief, the appellate group at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP can help. The deadlines are short, so the time to ask is now.

 [Discuss an appeal](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Municipal Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-municipal-litigation/)

**Published:** June 11, 2026
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

Practice Areas · Municipal Litigation

# A faulty inspection, a hidden
building code defect, a denied
title insurance claim.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP acts for property owners across Ontario when a municipality, a builder or a title insurer leaves them holding the loss.

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194) 

Group LeadDavid Morin, Managing Partner and a Deputy Judge of the Superior Court since 2003

Court of AppealActed for the successful owners in *Breen v Lake of Bays* and *Tokarz v Selwyn*

Based in MuskokaActing for property owners across Ontario

    [How we help](#scope) [Building inspection](#inspection) [Building code](#code) [Title insurance](#title) [The process](#process) [Engagement](#fees) [The group](#team) [FAQ](#faq) 

   The Practice

Excellence matters. David Morin, Managing Partner

The problem usually arrives without warning: a work order from the municipality, a structural defect found during a renovation, or a letter from a title insurer denying a claim. Suddenly a property you trusted has become a liability, and the question is who is responsible and whether the loss can be recovered.

This group is led by Managing Partner [David Morin](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/), with partner [Peter Reinitzer](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer/). David has built a litigation practice around municipal liability and has written extensively on title insurance claims, and he has sat as a Deputy Judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario since 2003. David and Peter acted together for the property owners in two leading Court of Appeal building-inspection cases, *Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)* and *Tokarz v Selwyn (Township)*.

We act for property owners and buyers, and for the real estate lawyers who refer these matters to us. The work is rooted in Muskoka, where building and property disputes are a daily reality, and we take it on for owners across Ontario.

   What This Group Does

## Three problems we are built to solve

Our municipal work centres on three related situations, each of which can leave an owner facing a substantial and unexpected cost.

 ONE### Negligent building inspection

Claims against municipalities whose inspectors approved construction that did not meet the Building Code, where that failure later causes loss.

 TWO### Building code violations and work orders

Helping owners faced with orders to comply, unpermitted work, and Code deficiencies discovered after a purchase or during a renovation.

 THREE### Title insurance claims

Representing insureds against title insurers, including denied claims and disputes over building, permit and police powers exclusions.

   Municipal Liability

## Negligent municipal building inspection

The *Building Code Act, 1992* makes municipalities responsible for inspecting construction against the Ontario Building Code. When a municipal inspector approves work that does not meet the Code, and an owner is later harmed by that failure, the municipality can be liable in negligence. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed in *Ingles v Tutkaluk Construction Ltd*, 2000 SCC 12, that a municipality owes a duty of care to those who may be injured by the negligent exercise of its inspection powers.

The Court of Appeal applied that principle in *Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)*, 2022 ONCA 626, holding that once a building permit is granted, the municipality has an obligation to inspect for Code compliance, even where the owner did not request a final inspection. David Morin and Peter Reinitzer acted for the property owners, whose recovery the Court of Appeal upheld. They also acted for the owners in *Tokarz v Selwyn (Township)*, 2022 ONCA 246, a further building-inspection case at the Court of Appeal.

Whether an inspection fell below the standard, and what the Code required, are established through technical and expert evidence, and every case turns on its own facts. These defects are often hidden, surfacing only years later on a renovation or sale, so the timing of a claim and the limitation period need early attention.

### Situations we see

- Structural deficiencies that were approved at inspection
- Construction that never received a required inspection
- Permits closed without a proper final inspection
- Non-compliant work discovered on resale or renovation
- Code deficiencies that render a building unsafe

   Building Code

## Building code violations and work orders

A building code problem often announces itself as a municipal order: an order to comply, a work order, or a notice that work was done without a permit. These can stall a sale, force costly remediation, and raise hard questions about who is responsible, whether that is the municipality, a previous owner, a builder, or a professional involved in the purchase.

We help owners faced with these orders understand their position and pursue the responsible party. Depending on the facts, that can mean a claim against a municipality for negligent inspection, a claim against a vendor or a builder, or a claim under a title insurance policy. We assemble the engineering and technical evidence these disputes require, and we keep the limitation period in view from the start, because the loss is often discovered long after the work was done.

   Title Insurance

## Title insurance claims

Title insurance is meant to protect an owner against certain defects in title and related losses, and it frequently comes into play exactly when a building or permit problem surfaces, for example an unregistered work order or construction carried out without the proper permits. In practice, whether the policy responds turns on its specific wording and on a set of exclusions that insurers apply firmly.

David Morin has written extensively on these claims and the exclusions that decide them, including the police powers exclusion and the suffered, created or assumed and the known to the insured exclusions, and on how policy wording differs from one insurer to the next. We act for insureds in title insurance claims, including denied claims, and for any significant claim we do not recommend that an owner deal with the title insurer alone.

Coverage is a matter of the policy and the facts. We give an honest assessment of whether a claim is likely to respond before it is advanced.

### From David Morin's commentary

- [The importance of title insurance in real estate transactions](https://dcmlaw.ca/the-importance-of-title-insurance-in-real-estate-transactions/)
- [Building permit claims under a title insurance policy](https://dcmlaw.ca/building-permit-claims-under-a-title-insurance-policy/)
- [The police powers exclusion](https://dcmlaw.ca/title-insurance-police-powers-exclusion/)
- [The suffered, created or assumed and known to the insured exclusions](https://dcmlaw.ca/title-insurance-exclusions-suffered-created-or-assumed-and-known-to-the-insured-but-not-the-insurer/)
- [Why policy wording differs between insurers](https://dcmlaw.ca/significant-differences-in-title-insurance-policy-wording-a-potential-cause-for-concern-for-lawyers/)

   From Problem to Recovery

## How a claim proceeds

Every matter is different, but a property claim tends to move through the same stages. The early steps decide how strong the case will be.

### Tell us what happened

The order, the defect or the denial, and the documents behind it: the permit file, the inspection records and the policy.

### Assess responsibility and coverage

We identify who may be liable and whether a title policy responds, and give you a candid view of the claim before any cost is committed.

### Gather the technical evidence

Building inspection and code cases turn on engineering and expert evidence, which we assemble early and build the case around.

### Advance the claim

Against the municipality, a vendor or builder, or the title insurer, and always mindful of the limitation period.

### Resolution or trial

Most claims resolve, but we are trial counsel and prepared to prove the case in court when a fair resolution is not available.

### Appeal if needed

The firm runs its appeals in-house, as our Court of Appeal results in this area reflect.

   Engagement

## Working with us

An assessment of the claim and the key documents is the right first step. From there we discuss the approach and a fee arrangement suited to the matter. These cases reward early, careful work, so the sooner we see the permit file, the inspection records or the policy, the better.

Based in Huntsville, in the heart of cottage country, we act for property owners across Ontario.

- A candid assessment of the claim before you commit
- Early focus on the permit file, inspection records and policy
- Technical and engineering evidence assembled by the team
- Claims pursued against the right party, not the easiest one
- Appeals run in-house, as our results show

   The Group

## The municipal litigation group

Two Muskoka-based litigators who have taken building-inspection cases to the Court of Appeal for property owners, and who know this area from the ground up.

Managing Partner · Municipal Litigation Lead

### David Morin

Excellence matters.

David is the firm's Managing Partner, and his litigation practice includes municipal liability, professional negligence, product liability and personal injury. He acted for the successful property owners in the Court of Appeal building-inspection cases *Breen v Lake of Bays (Township)* and *Tokarz v Selwyn (Township)*, and has written extensively on title insurance claims. He has served as a Deputy Judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario since 2003 and is a past president of the Muskoka Law Association.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/) 

Partner

### Peter Reinitzer

Analytical. Creative. Fearless.

Peter built his practice at the firm with a focus on property loss and commercial and insurance litigation, and acted alongside David Morin for the property owners in *Breen v Lake of Bays* and *Tokarz v Selwyn*. He appears regularly at the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal, and brings a background that includes in-house work for a property developer. He is the president of the Muskoka Law Association and was called to the Ontario bar in 2015.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer/) 

   Recognition

## Tested where it counts

2 x ONCA

Acted for the property owners in two leading Court of Appeal building-inspection cases, ***Breen v Lake of Bays*** and ***Tokarz v Selwyn***.

Since 2003

David Morin has sat as a **Deputy Judge** of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario.

Muskoka

Rooted in cottage country, acting for property owners **across Ontario**.

   Questions Property Owners Ask

## Frequently asked questions

  I just found out my property has building code problems. Do I have a claim?You may. Depending on the facts, there can be a claim against the municipality for a negligent inspection, against a vendor or builder, or under a title insurance policy. It turns on the permit and inspection history and the documents, which is why the first step is an assessment of the file.

   Can I sue the municipality for a bad inspection?In the right circumstances, yes. A municipality that inspects construction owes a duty of care and can be liable where a negligent inspection causes loss, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in *Breen v Lake of Bays*. Liability turns on the facts and on expert evidence about what the Code required.

   The defects are from construction years ago. Is it too late?Not necessarily. The limitation period generally runs from when the problem was, or reasonably should have been, discovered, rather than from when the work was done. In these cases that is often a later renovation or sale. It is fact-specific, so it is best to ask early.

   My title insurer denied my claim. What can I do?A denial is not the end of the matter. Title policies contain exclusions that insurers apply firmly, but whether an exclusion actually applies depends on the wording of the policy and the facts. We act for insureds in denied and disputed title insurance claims.

   Should I deal with the title insurer myself?For a significant claim, we do not recommend it. The title insurer, and the lawyers who sell its policies, have their own interests. Experienced claimant-side counsel levels the field.

   How is this different from the firm's insurance group?Our insurance group acts for insurers in defence and coverage matters. This group acts for property owners, including against title insurers. They are separate practices on opposite sides of the table.

   Do you only act in Muskoka?No. We are based in Huntsville, but we act for property owners across Ontario.

   Will you handle the appeal if there is one?Yes. The firm runs its appeals in-house, and has acted at the Court of Appeal in this exact area.

   Speak With Our Team

## Left holding the loss?

If a faulty inspection, a building code defect, or a denied title insurance claim has left you with a problem that is not your fault, contact Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP. We will look at the documents and give you a straight view of where you stand.

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/)

**Published:** June 11, 2026
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

Practice Areas · Personal Injury

# A serious injury upends
your life. The right counsel
helps you rebuild it.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP acts for people across Ontario who have been seriously injured, from motor vehicle collisions to catastrophic, life-altering harm, and for the families left to cope.

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194) 

Senior CounselLed by senior partners David Morin, Jim Davidson and Paul Cahill

RecognitionLawyers named in Best Lawyers in Canada for Personal Injury Litigation

ExperienceCounsel Ron Strike has represented injured clients for more than 40 years

    [What you must prove](#prove) [Injuries we handle](#claims) [Benefits and lawsuit](#twoclaims) [Compensation](#compensation) [Time limits](#time) [How we work](#process) [The team](#team) [FAQ](#faq) 

   The Practice

My strength is finding the shortest path to the best possible outcome for my clients. Jim Davidson, Partner

A serious injury rarely arrives alone. It brings medical bills, lost income, a long and uncertain recovery, and an insurance system that does not make any of it simple. The people who are hurt did not ask for any of this, and they should not have to fight the consequences without help.

Our personal injury group is led by senior partners [David Morin](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/), [Jim Davidson](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson/) and [Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/), with [Ron Strike](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike/), [Joel Cormier](https://dcmlaw.ca/joel-cormier/), [Peter Reinitzer](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer/) and [Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/). On this side of our practice we act for the injured person and their family, and our work runs from everyday collisions to the most catastrophic injuries.

We take cases from across Ontario, from offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville. If you are not sure where you stand, the most useful first step is a conversation. You may also find our overview of [what to know after a car accident in Ontario](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-car-accidents-in-ontario/) helpful.

   The Basics

## What an injury claim has to establish

Being hurt is not, by itself, a claim. To recover compensation, an injured person generally has to show that someone else was at fault and that the fault caused real harm. Four building blocks have to be in place, and the burden rests on the injured person throughout.

 ONE### A duty of care

The other party owed you a duty to take reasonable care, whether as a driver on the road, an occupier of property, or the maker of a product.

 TWO### A breach of the standard

That party fell short of the care a reasonable person would have shown in the circumstances. What the standard required is proved with evidence, and with experts where the issue is technical.

 THREE### Causation

The breach caused your injury. You must show that, but for the other party's conduct, the harm would not have happened.

 FOUR### Damages

There is real, compensable loss: the injury itself, the cost of care, lost income, and the effect on your life. Without loss there is no claim, however careless the conduct.

   Where We Act

## The injuries and claims we handle

Our work spans the full range of serious injury. The matters we are most often retained on include the following. If your situation is not listed, it does not mean we cannot help, so please ask.

 Collisions### Motor vehicle accidents

Decades of experience helping people injured in car and truck collisions navigate Ontario's complex compensation system.

 No-Fault### Accident benefits (SABS)

Securing the no-fault accident benefits available after a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement, treatment and attendant care.

 Severe Harm### Catastrophic injuries

Representing those with the most severe injuries, who may qualify for enhanced benefits if found to be catastrophically impaired.

 Neurological### Brain injuries

Concussions and traumatic brain injuries, which can cause lasting disability, loss of work and dependence on others for care.

 Spinal### Spinal cord injuries

Catastrophic spinal injuries that affect mobility and independence, where the compensation has to fund a lifetime of changed needs.

 Premises### Slip and fall and occupiers' liability

Serious injuries from poorly maintained walkways and premises, including municipal sidewalks. [More on slip and fall claims](https://dcmlaw.ca/legal-insights-to-maximize-your-slip-and-fall-accident-claims-in-ontario/).

 Vulnerable Users### Pedestrian, cyclist and motorcycle

Collisions involving the most exposed road users, where injuries are often severe. [More on cycling safety and the law](https://dcmlaw.ca/biking-through-toronto-safely-navigating-laws-accidents-and-safety-measures/).

 Products### Product liability

Injuries caused by negligently designed or manufactured consumer products that fail in use.

 Fatalities### Fatal accidents and wrongful death

Acting for families after a death, including their own claims for the loss of care, guidance and companionship.

   After a Motor Vehicle Accident

## Two claims, not one

People are often surprised to learn that a motor vehicle accident in Ontario can give rise to two separate claims that run at the same time. They serve different purposes, and we pursue both.

### Accident benefits (no-fault)

These come from your own insurer, regardless of who caused the accident. They can include income replacement, medical and rehabilitation treatment, and attendant care, and they are meant to start early to support your recovery. Disputes about benefits are decided by the Licence Appeal Tribunal, and the most seriously hurt may qualify for enhanced benefits as catastrophically impaired.

### The tort claim (against the at-fault party)

This is the lawsuit against the person who caused the crash. It is where you recover the full range of your losses, including pain and suffering and the future income and care that benefits do not fully cover. It is subject to its own deadlines and, for pain and suffering, to a deductible and a threshold.

The two work together, and the choices made on one side affect the other. Coordinating them is much of the skill in a motor vehicle case, and it is why early advice matters.

   Compensation

## What a claim can recover

The purpose of a claim is to put the injured person, so far as money can, in the position they would have been in had the injury never happened. In a serious case that figure can be very large, because the biggest components are usually the lifetime cost of care and lost earning capacity.

### Pecuniary damages (no cap)

These are the measurable financial losses, and there is no legal ceiling on them. They can include past and future medical treatment, attendant and personal care, therapy and rehabilitation, assistive equipment, home and vehicle modifications, lost income, and the loss of future earning capacity. In catastrophic cases the future-care and income components are what drive awards into the millions.

### Non-pecuniary damages (subject to a cap)

These compensate for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. The Supreme Court of Canada has set an upper limit on this category that is indexed for inflation and now sits in the range of roughly $400,000 to $470,000, with the maximum reserved for the most devastating injuries.

### Motor vehicle claims: the deductible and threshold

Motor vehicle cases carry an extra hurdle that other injury claims do not. Ontario law applies a statutory deductible to compensation for pain and suffering, and in many cases a monetary threshold must be met before those damages can be awarded at all. Both figures are adjusted each year. They reduce or affect only the pain-and-suffering portion of a tort claim, not your accident benefits, and not the pecuniary losses above.

### Claims by family members

Under Ontario's *Family Law Act*, close family members can advance their own claims arising from a serious injury or a death, including compensation for the loss of care, guidance and companionship, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of care they provide.

   Deadlines

## The deadlines, and the ones measured in days

Ontario's *Limitations Act, 2002* sets the basic deadline to start a lawsuit at two years. Under the discoverability rule, that period generally runs from when you knew, or ought reasonably to have known, the facts pointing to a claim, rather than from the date of the accident. The clock does not run against a minor who is unrepresented, or against a person who is incapable and unrepresented, and a separate outer limit bars most claims after 15 years.

What catches people out, though, are the much shorter notice periods that can apply long before the two years are up. Missing one can bar an otherwise strong claim.

- **Accident benefits.** Notify your insurer as soon as you can, generally within 7 days of the accident, and submit the application within 30 days of receiving the forms.
- **Suing an at-fault driver.** Written notice of a motor vehicle tort claim must be given within 120 days, and the lawsuit itself started within two years.
- **A fall on a municipal sidewalk or road.** Written notice to the municipality is required within 10 days of the injury under the *Municipal Act, 2001*.
- **A fall on snow or ice on private property.** Written notice to the occupier and any maintenance contractor is required within 60 days under the *Occupiers' Liability Act*.

Some of these are counted in days, not years, so the safest course after an injury is to seek advice immediately, even if you are still recovering. Limited exceptions exist, but they cannot be relied on.

   Our Approach

## How we build a case

Every injury is different, but the work tends to follow the same path. We tell clients early what to expect, because these cases reward steady, thorough preparation.

### Listen, and make sure you are cared for

We start with what happened and how you are doing, and make sure treatment and benefits are in place while the claim takes shape.

### Secure your accident benefits

For a motor vehicle case, we get the no-fault benefits flowing and deal with the insurer, and the Licence Appeal Tribunal if a dispute arises.

### Investigate and preserve the evidence

We secure the scene, the records and the witnesses before they fade, and act on the short notice deadlines that can apply.

### Build the medical and financial case

We retain the medical and economic experts needed to prove the injury, the future cost of care and the loss of earning capacity.

### Issue the claim and complete discovery

We commence the lawsuit within time and test the case through documentary and oral discovery, where much of it is won or lost.

### Resolve it, or try it

Most claims settle on terms that reflect their full value. When a fair resolution is not available we are trial counsel, and we run our own appeals.

   Fees and Access

## Representation on a contingency fee basis

We believe a serious injury should not be made worse by the cost of getting help. We act for injured people on a contingency fee basis, so you do not pay our legal fees up front, and our fee is a percentage of what we recover for you.

We explain the fee, and how disbursements are handled, clearly at the outset. An initial consultation to find out where you stand is without obligation.

- You pay no legal fees up front.
- Our fee is a percentage of what we recover for you.
- We advance the cost of building your case.
- A consultation to find out where you stand carries no obligation.

   The Team

## The personal injury group

Senior trial counsel and a deep bench, across three offices, for people who have been seriously hurt.

Managing Partner

### David Morin

Excellence matters.

David is the firm's Managing Partner, and his litigation practice includes personal injury, product liability, municipal liability and professional negligence. He has represented seriously injured clients and taken cases to the Court of Appeal, and he has served as a Deputy Judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario since 2003.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/) 

Partner

### Jim Davidson

My strength is finding the shortest path to the best possible outcome for my clients.

Jim is a Law Society of Ontario Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation and has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for personal injury litigation since 2018. He has significant experience in injury, fatality and disability claims, and began practising in 1993.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson/) 

Partner

### Paul Cahill

Achieving successful outcomes in challenging lawsuits is what I do best.

Paul is a Law Society of Ontario Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation and has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for both medical negligence and personal injury litigation since 2021. He is a trial lawyer who has obtained significant results for catastrophically injured clients, and acts as trial counsel to other lawyers on select matters.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/) 

Counsel

### Ron Strike

I take pride in helping the little guy get justice in personal injury lawsuits.

Ron practises exclusively in personal injury law and represents plaintiffs only. He has acted for seriously injured clients for more than 40 years, has litigated numerous catastrophic injury cases, and has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for personal injury litigation since 2024. He was called to the Ontario bar in 1983 and works from the firm's Bowmanville office.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike/) 

Partner

### Joel Cormier

The most essential trait of a good litigator is not a readiness to fight, but a willingness to listen.

Joel's practice includes personal injury, subrogation, insurance and construction litigation, with considerable experience at trial and on appeal. He has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for personal injury litigation since 2023 and was called to the Ontario bar in 2006.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/joel-cormier/) 

Partner

### Peter Reinitzer

Analytical. Creative. Fearless.

Peter has built a practice with a focus on personal injury and property loss, and appears regularly at the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal. He pairs trial advocacy with creative resolution to achieve results for his clients, and was called to the Ontario bar in 2015.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer/) 

Associate

### Hudson Chalmers

Advocating with purpose and compassion.

Hudson's practice includes personal injury and insurance litigation, with a special interest in medical malpractice. He completed his articles at the firm, was called to the Ontario bar in 2020, and takes pride in understanding both sides of a dispute.

 [Full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/) 

   Recognition

## Recognized for this work

Best Lawyers

Jim Davidson (2018), Paul Cahill (2021), Joel Cormier (2023) and Ron Strike (2024) named in **Best Lawyers in Canada** for Personal Injury Litigation.

40+ years

Counsel **Ron Strike** has represented seriously injured clients for more than four decades.

Ontario-wide

Offices in **Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville**, acting for injured people across the province.

   Questions Injured People Ask

## Frequently asked questions

  Do I have a personal injury claim?You may, if someone else's carelessness caused your injury and you have suffered real loss as a result. A poor outcome on its own is not enough. We will look at what happened and give you an honest view of whether there is a claim worth pursuing.

   How long do I have to bring a claim?The basic deadline to sue is two years, often running from when you discovered the claim rather than the date of the accident. But much shorter notice periods, some measured in days, can apply for accident benefits, for suing an at-fault driver, for falls on municipal property, and for snow and ice falls. Because of that, it is best to get advice immediately.

   What is the difference between accident benefits and a lawsuit?Accident benefits are no-fault benefits paid by your own insurer after a motor vehicle accident, regardless of who was at fault. A lawsuit is a separate claim against the person who caused the crash, for the full range of your losses. Most injured motorists have both, and they run at the same time.

   What can I recover?Past and future care, lost income and earning capacity, which are not capped, and compensation for pain and suffering, which is subject to a national limit and, in motor vehicle cases, to a deductible and threshold. Family members may also have their own claims under the *Family Law Act*.

   What will it cost me to hire you?We act on a contingency fee basis. You pay no legal fees up front, and our fee is a percentage of what we recover for you. We explain the fee and how disbursements are handled at the outset, and an initial consultation is without obligation.

   I was partly at fault. Can I still claim?Often, yes. Ontario law generally reduces a claim by the injured person's share of responsibility rather than barring it outright. Being partly at fault is not the same as having no claim, so it is worth asking.

   Do you also act for insurance companies?The firm has a separate insurance group that defends insurers. This personal injury group acts for injured people. They are distinct practices, and conflicts are screened when a matter comes in.

   How long will my case take?Serious injury claims are evidence-heavy and often vigorously defended, so they can take time, sometimes several years, to resolve. We keep you informed at each stage. Our note on [how long a claim takes to settle](https://dcmlaw.ca/how-long-does-a-personal-injury-lawsuit-take-to-settle/) may help.

   Speak With Our Team

## Start with a conversation

If you or someone you love has been seriously injured, contact Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP. The first conversation is straightforward, confidential and without obligation, and because some deadlines are measured in days, the sooner you reach out, the better we can protect your claim.

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Medical Malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-medical-malpractice/)

**Published:** June 11, 2026
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

Practice Areas · Medical Malpractice

# When medical care
causes lasting harm,
we hold it to account.

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP represents patients and families across Ontario in serious medical negligence claims. These cases are complex and vigorously defended. We build them to win.

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194) 

Group LeadPaul Cahill, Partner and LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation

RecognitionBest Lawyers in Canada for Medical Negligence since 2021

Track RecordTrial results including an $11.5 million judgment for a child with cerebral palsy

    [What counts as malpractice](#what) [Cases we handle](#areas) [What a claim must prove](#proof) [Compensation](#compensation) [Time limits](#time) [How we build a case](#process) [Fees](#fees) [The team](#team) [FAQ](#faq) 

   The Practice

Achieving successful outcomes in challenging medical malpractice lawsuits is what I do best. Paul Cahill, Partner

A serious medical error can change everything: a birth injury that leaves a child with lifelong needs, a cancer that goes undiagnosed until it is too late, a routine surgery that ends in catastrophe. When that happens, families are left with questions, mounting costs, and a health-care system that does not always explain what went wrong.

Partner [Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/) leads the medical malpractice group at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP, working alongside associate [Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/). We act only for injured patients and their families, never for hospitals or insurers. Our focus is narrow on purpose: medical negligence is one of the most demanding and technical areas of civil litigation, and it rewards lawyers who do it often and do it well.

We take cases from across Ontario. If you are wondering whether what happened to you or someone you love amounts to malpractice, the most useful first step is a conversation. You can [read our overview on whether you can sue](https://dcmlaw.ca/can-i-sue-for-medical-malpractice/), or contact us directly.

   The Standard

## A bad outcome is not the same as malpractice

Medicine carries risk, and not every disappointing result is the product of negligence. Skilled physicians can do everything correctly and a patient can still come to harm. The law recognizes this. A medical malpractice claim is not about second-guessing a difficult judgment call with the benefit of hindsight. It is about care that fell below the standard the profession itself expects, and that caused real injury as a result.

To succeed, an injured patient must establish four things. Each is genuinely contested in most cases, and the burden rests on the patient throughout.

 ELEMENT ONE### A duty of care

The relationship between a health-care provider and a patient gives rise to a legal duty to take reasonable care. This element is rarely in dispute once treatment has begun.

 ELEMENT TWO### A breach of the standard of care

The care must have fallen below what a reasonably competent provider in the same field would have done in the circumstances. What that standard required is a question for qualified medical experts, not for the court on its own.

 ELEMENT THREE### Causation

The breach must have caused the injury. The patient must show that, but for the negligence, the harm would not have occurred. This is often the hardest element to prove, and the one most heavily fought.

 ELEMENT FOUR### Damages

There must be real harm and real loss: physical injury, the cost of care, lost income, and the human toll of all of it. Without compensable damage, there is no claim, however careless the conduct.

   Where We Act

## The cases we take on

Our work spans the full range of serious medical negligence. Some of the matters we are most often retained on include the following. If your situation is not listed, it does not mean we cannot help, so please ask.

 Obstetrics### Birth trauma and birth injury

Obstetrical and neonatal negligence causing hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) and cerebral palsy, including injuries linked to delayed delivery and mismanaged labour.

 Maternity### Midwifery negligence

Failures in midwife-led care during pregnancy, labour and delivery, and in the recognition and escalation of a deteriorating mother or baby.

 Surgery### Surgical errors

Negligence in gynaecology, urology, general, neuro, vascular, orthopaedic and other surgery, including wrong-site and retained-instrument "never events."

 Recovery### Post-operative care

A failure to monitor, recognize or respond to post-surgical complications such as bleeding, infection or compartment syndrome before they become catastrophic.

 Emergency### Emergency room delay

Missed or delayed diagnosis in the emergency department, where minutes matter. See [When Seconds Count](https://dcmlaw.ca/when-seconds-count-protecting-yourself-from-medical-malpractice-in-emergency-rooms/).

 Diagnosis### Misdiagnosis and delay

Cancer and other serious conditions that are missed, misread or left to progress, including failures to follow up on abnormal imaging and test results.

 Neurology### Stroke misdiagnosis

Neurological emergencies and strokes that are not recognized or treated in time, costing patients the window for intervention.

 Medication### Medication errors

Prescribing, dispensing and administration errors, dangerous drug interactions, and dosing mistakes that cause avoidable harm.

 Consent### Lack of informed consent

Treatment that proceeds without proper disclosure of the material risks a reasonable patient would have wanted to know before agreeing.

 Institutional### Hospital falls and neglect

Negligent supervision, falls, pressure injuries and other harm arising from inadequate institutional care.

 Long-Term Care### Nursing home negligence

Substandard care of vulnerable and elderly residents, including neglect, inadequate staffing and failures of basic monitoring.

 Trial Counsel### Counsel to other lawyers

For select matters, Paul Cahill acts as trial counsel to other firms in medical malpractice and serious personal injury claims headed to court.

   How These Cases Are Decided

## Why medical negligence is fought so hard

Physicians in Canada are generally defended by the Canadian Medical Protective Association, a well-resourced organization that retains experienced defence counsel and its own roster of expert witnesses. Hospitals carry their own insurers and counsel. A patient who brings a claim is, in practice, taking on a defence that is well funded and rarely settles cheaply. That reality shapes everything about how a case must be prepared.

The decisive battles tend to be fought over two of the four elements: the standard of care and causation.

### Standard of care

The court does not decide on its own what proper care looked like. In a medical negligence case the standard is proved through the evidence of qualified experts in the relevant specialty, who explain what a reasonably competent provider would have done. Where a defendant followed an accepted practice, that ordinarily weighs in their favour, although a court can still find an accepted practice itself negligent where it carries obvious and avoidable risks. The leading authority is *ter Neuzen v Korn* (Supreme Court of Canada, 1995).

Because the standard turns on specialty-specific expert evidence, the identity and quality of the experts we retain often decides the case.

### Causation

It is not enough to show that care was substandard. The patient must connect the breach to the injury. The general test asks whether, but for the negligence, the harm would have happened anyway, as set out in *Clements v Clements* (Supreme Court of Canada, 2012). Causation need not be proven with scientific certainty: a court may draw a common-sense inference from the whole of the evidence, following *Snell v Farrell* (Supreme Court of Canada, 1990). In delayed-diagnosis and emergency cases, the fight is usually about what would have changed if the right step had been taken in time.

### Informed consent

A separate line of claim arises where a patient was not given the information they needed to make a real decision. A provider must disclose the material risks of a proposed treatment, including risks a reasonable person in the patient's position would want to weigh. If a material risk was not disclosed and then came to pass, the question is whether a reasonable patient, properly informed, would have declined or chosen differently. The governing case is *Reibl v Hughes* (Supreme Court of Canada, 1980).

The cases above are leading decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and are binding throughout Ontario. This page describes the legal framework in general terms. How these principles apply to any particular set of facts, and what the standard of care required in a given case, depends on the medical evidence and on advice tailored to your situation.

   What a Claim Can Recover

## Compensation in a medical malpractice claim

The purpose of a civil claim is to put the injured person, so far as money can, in the position they would have been in had the negligence never happened. In a catastrophic case that figure can be very large, because the biggest components are usually the lifetime cost of care and lost earning capacity, neither of which is capped.

### Pecuniary damages (no cap)

These are the measurable financial losses, and there is no legal ceiling on them. They can include the past and future cost of medical treatment, attendant and personal care, therapy and rehabilitation, assistive equipment, home and vehicle modifications, lost income to date, and the loss of future earning capacity. In serious cases the future-care and income components are what drive awards into the millions.

### Non-pecuniary damages (subject to a cap)

These compensate for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Across Canada the Supreme Court has set an upper limit on this category, established in the 1978 "trilogy" (*Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd*, *Thornton v School District No. 57*, and *Arnold v Teno*) at $100,000 in 1978 dollars. That figure is indexed for inflation and now sits in the range of roughly $400,000 to $470,000, and the maximum is reserved for the most devastating injuries.

### Claims by family members

Under Ontario's *Family Law Act*, close family members can advance their own claims arising from the injury or death of a loved one. These can include compensation for the loss of the care, guidance and companionship they would have received, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of nursing and other care they provide. Where negligence causes a death, the family's claim is often a significant part of the case.

   Deadlines

## How long you have to bring a claim

Ontario's *Limitations Act, 2002* sets the deadlines, and they are strict. The basic limitation period is two years. Importantly, the clock does not necessarily start on the day the treatment went wrong. Under the "discoverability" rule it starts when you knew, or ought reasonably to have known, the material facts that point to a possible claim, the standard the Supreme Court of Canada described in *Grant Thornton LLP v New Brunswick* (2021). In many medical cases this can be later than the date of treatment, because the connection between the care and the harm may not be apparent until a supportive expert opinion is obtained. That said, discoverability is fact-specific and is not a guarantee of extra time.

Several important qualifications apply:

- **Minors.** For a child, the two-year clock does not run while they are under 18 and unrepresented by a litigation guardian. This matters greatly in birth-injury cases.
- **Incapable persons.** The clock is suspended for someone who is incapable of bringing a claim because of a disability and who is not represented by a litigation guardian.
- **The ultimate limitation period.** Subject to the exceptions above, a separate outer limit bars most claims 15 years after the act or omission, regardless of when the harm was discovered.

Because the deadlines can be earlier or later than people expect, and because building a medical case takes time, the safest course is to seek advice as soon as you suspect something went wrong. Even if you believe a great deal of time has passed, it is worth asking.

   Our Approach

## How we build a case

Every matter is different, but serious medical negligence claims tend to move through the same stages. We tell clients early what to expect, because these cases reward patience and thorough preparation.

### Listen and review the records

We start with your account of what happened and a careful review of the complete medical record. This is where the questions that decide a case first take shape.

### Obtain independent expert opinion

We retain qualified specialists to assess the standard of care and causation. An honest, supportive expert opinion is the foundation of any viable claim, and we will tell you frankly what the evidence shows.

### Issue the claim

If the case is sound, we commence the lawsuit by issuing a statement of claim, mindful always of the limitation period.

### Documentary and oral discovery

Both sides exchange documents and are examined under oath. This is where the defence theory is tested and where much of the case is won or lost.

### Mediation and negotiation

Most claims resolve before trial. We pursue settlement from a position of strength, on terms that reflect the full value of your losses, and never out of a reluctance to go to court.

### Trial

When a fair resolution cannot be reached, we are trial lawyers. Paul Cahill has tried and won serious medical negligence cases, and that willingness and ability to take a case to a verdict shapes every negotiation that comes before it.

   Fees and Access

## Representation on a contingency fee basis

We believe everyone should have access to quality legal representation, regardless of their financial situation. For medical malpractice claims we offer competitive, sliding-scale contingency fee representation, so the cost of pursuing a claim is not a barrier to justice.

Given the cost and complexity of this work, only select matters can be offered a contingency fee agreement. Whether we can act on that basis is something we will discuss candidly with you at the outset.

- You pay us nothing unless we win or settle your case.
- The earlier your case resolves, the less you pay in legal fees.
- If we do not succeed, you owe us nothing, not even disbursements.
- A consultation to find out where you stand carries no obligation.

   A Common Question

## A complaint to the College is not a lawsuit

Many patients first approach the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) or another regulatory college. That process is important, but it is different from a civil claim. The college can investigate a provider's conduct and impose professional discipline, but it does not award you compensation for your losses. A civil lawsuit is the route to financial recovery. The two processes are separate and can proceed at the same time.

Our team can offer guidance on the regulatory side as well. If you are considering a complaint, you may find our explainer useful: [How to make a complaint to the CPSO](https://dcmlaw.ca/how-to-make-a-complaint-against-a-physician-to-the-college-of-physicians-and-surgeons-of-ontario-cpso/).

   The People

## Who will handle your case

Medical malpractice at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP is led by Paul Cahill, working closely with Hudson Chalmers. You will deal with the lawyers doing the work, not a rotating cast.

 Partner · Group Lead### Paul Cahill

"Achieving successful outcomes in challenging medical malpractice lawsuits is what I do best."

Paul's advocacy inside and outside the courtroom has earned his recognition by the Law Society of Ontario as a Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation. He has been named in Best Lawyers in Canada for Medical Negligence and Personal Injury Litigation since 2021. His trial results include an $11.5 million judgment for medical malpractice causing cerebral palsy, and a judgment against a negligent emergency room physician arising from the death of a 34-year-old mother of four, later upheld on appeal in *Shaw Estate v Handler*.

A past director of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association and past chair of its Medical Malpractice Section, Paul is a frequent speaker on medical negligence and causation, and was called to the Ontario bar in 2005.

 [Read Paul's full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/) 

 Associate### Hudson Chalmers

"Advocating with purpose and compassion."

Hudson's practice covers personal injury and insurance litigation, with a particular interest in medical malpractice. He takes pride in understanding both sides of a dispute and applying that insight to his clients' advantage. He has served as a judge for medical malpractice moot and mock-trial competitions, including at the University of Toronto and Western Law.

Hudson earned his Bachelor of Arts in History from Queen's University (2016) and his Juris Doctor from the University of Windsor, Faculty of Law (2019), and was called to the bar in 2020 after articling with the firm.

 [Read Hudson's full profile](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/) 

   Standing

## Recognition that reflects results

$11.5M

Judgment for **medical malpractice causing cerebral palsy** against a negligent doctor.

Since 2021

Paul Cahill named in **Best Lawyers in Canada** for Medical Negligence and Personal Injury Litigation.

Certified

Recognized by the Law Society of Ontario as a **Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation**.

   Questions Patients Ask

## Frequently asked questions

  How do I know if I have a medical malpractice case?You may not, until the records are reviewed. A poor outcome on its own is not enough. There must be care that fell below the standard of a reasonably competent provider, and that breach must have caused your injury. We assess this with the help of independent medical experts and will give you our honest view of what the evidence shows.

   How long do I have to start a claim?The basic deadline in Ontario is two years, but it can run from when you discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) the facts pointing to a claim, rather than from the date of treatment. Different rules apply to minors and to people who are incapable, and a separate 15-year outer limit also applies in most cases. Because the timing is rarely obvious, it is best to ask early.

   What will it cost me to hire you?We act on a competitive, sliding-scale contingency fee basis for the medical malpractice matters we take on. You pay no legal fees unless we win or settle, and if we do not succeed you owe nothing, not even disbursements. The earlier a case resolves, the less you pay. An initial consultation is without obligation.

   Is suing the same as complaining to the CPSO?No. A complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario can lead to an investigation and professional discipline, but it does not compensate you for your losses. A civil lawsuit is how you recover money. The two are separate and can run at the same time.

   How much is my claim worth?It depends entirely on the injury and its consequences. The largest awards come from the lifetime cost of care and lost earning capacity, which are not capped. Compensation for pain and suffering is subject to a national limit set by the Supreme Court of Canada. No responsible lawyer can promise a figure before the evidence is gathered, and we will not.

   How long will my case take?Serious medical negligence cases are document-heavy, expert-driven and vigorously defended, so they generally take time, often several years, before they resolve. We keep you informed at each stage. You may find our note on [how long a claim takes to settle](https://dcmlaw.ca/how-long-does-a-personal-injury-lawsuit-take-to-settle/) helpful.

   A family member died because of negligent care. Can we make a claim?Yes. Where negligence causes a death, close family members can bring claims under Ontario's *Family Law Act* for the loss of care, guidance and companionship, along with related expenses. These claims are often a substantial part of a case. We approach them with the sensitivity they require.

   Do you take cases outside Toronto?Yes. We represent patients and families across Ontario. Distance is not an obstacle to working with our team.

   Speak With Our Team

## Find out where you stand

If you believe you or someone you love was harmed by negligent medical care, contact Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP. The first conversation is straightforward, confidential and without obligation, and it is the fastest way to understand your options.

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Blog](https://dcmlaw.ca/blog/)

**Published:** June 10, 2024
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

# Insights

Civil Litigation & Appellate Advocacy

Case comments, appellate decisions and practical commentary from our litigators, alongside news from the firm.

  [All](https://dcmlaw.ca/blog/) [Firm News](https://dcmlaw.ca/category/firm-news/) [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/category/insurance-law/) [Medical Malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/category/medical-malpractice/) [Municipal Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/category/municipal-litigation/) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/category/personal-injury/)  

   Latest PostsNewest first, across every practice area.

  [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP card reading "No Coverage Until a Request Is Made", with a portrait of partner Chris Morrison.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage.png)

 ](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/)###  [ No Coverage Until a Request Is Made: The Court of Appeal on Fleet Policies and OPCF 21A ](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/) 

  Chris Morrison   July 30, 2026  

A leased Honda Civic was in an accident in August 2020. It first appeared on a monthly fleet report a month later, and had been leased since 2017 without ever making the schedule of automobiles. In 2026 ONCA 553, the Court of Appeal held that OPCF 21A (c) means what its capital letters say: no coverage until a request for coverage is filed, and no coverage backdated to policy inception. Chris Morrison and Kathleen Lefebvre were counsel for the successful appellant.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/opcf-21a-no-retroactive-fleet-coverage/) 

   [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP title card reading "Ottawa Floods and Construction Defects," with a photo of partner Peter Reinitzer.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/dcm-ottawa-floods-construction-card.png)

 ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/)###  [ After the Deluge: When Ottawa Basement Flooding Points to Construction Deficiencies ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/) 

  Peter Reinitzer   July 14, 2026  

The historic Canada Day 2026 storm left thousands of Ottawa homeowners tearing out drywall and replacing ruined furnaces. But an extraordinary weather event does not absolve builders and engineers of liability: where one home floods while its neighbours stay dry, the real cause may be a hidden construction defect, and that opens a very different path to recovery, if you act before the limitation clock runs out.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ottawa-floods-construction-deficiency-claims/) 

   [![The Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP team in matching blue jerseys on the sand at Woodbine Beach, holding a volleyball in front of the Heatwave for SickKids banner.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/dcm-heatwave-sickkids-2026.jpg)

 ](https://dcmlaw.ca/playing-for-sickkids-2026-heatwave-beach-volleyball-tournament/)###  [ Playing for SickKids at the 2026 Heatwave Beach Volleyball Tournament ](https://dcmlaw.ca/playing-for-sickkids-2026-heatwave-beach-volleyball-tournament/) 

  Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP   July 13, 2026  

On July 11, 2026, our team traded the office for the sand at Woodbine Beach to play in the 32nd annual Heatwave for SickKids beach volleyball tournament. The event, which holds a Guinness World Record as the largest of its kind, has raised roughly $5 million for SickKids Foundation, and we were glad to lend a hand.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/playing-for-sickkids-2026-heatwave-beach-volleyball-tournament/) 

   [![Navy title card reading "Major Changes to Ontario Accident Benefits, What the July 1, 2026 reforms mean for you," from Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP (dcmlaw.ca).](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/sabs-2026-changes.png)

 ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ontario-accident-benefits-changes-july-1-2026/)###  [ Ontario’s Auto Accident Benefits Change Today: What the July 1, 2026 Reforms Mean for You ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ontario-accident-benefits-changes-july-1-2026/) 

  Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP   July 1, 2026  

As of July 1, 2026, most of Ontario’s auto accident benefits are no longer automatic. Only medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care remain mandatory, while income replacement and most other benefits become optional coverage you have to buy. Here is what changed under Ontario Regulation 383/24, who may lose access, and what every driver should do at renewal.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ontario-accident-benefits-changes-july-1-2026/) 

   [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP case comment card reading "Kamlu Engineering v 2502301 Ontario Inc" with the subtitle "A board-less corporation lacks the capacity to sue", from dcmlaw.ca.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/kamlu-v-2502301-card.png)

 ](https://dcmlaw.ca/board-less-corporation-cannot-sue/)###  [ Kamlu v 2502301 Ontario Inc: Why a Board-Less Corporation Cannot Litigate ](https://dcmlaw.ca/board-less-corporation-cannot-sue/) 

  Peter Reinitzer   June 23, 2026  

In Kamlu v 2502301 Ontario Inc, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed an action as a nullity after the defence discovered the plaintiff corporation had operated for years with no valid board of directors, its sole directing mind an undischarged bankrupt. Justice Chiappetta held that an officer’s authority cannot outlive the board, and that a trustee’s silence is not ratification. A cautionary tale on corporate governance and the capacity to litigate.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/board-less-corporation-cannot-sue/) 

   [![Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP title card reading "Slatkovsky v Machado", with the line "A non-delegable permit duty and a dual agent's duty to disclose". Case comment, civil litigation, from dcmlaw.ca.](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/slatkovsky-v-machado.png)

 ](https://dcmlaw.ca/slatkovsky-v-machado-unpermitted-renovation/)###  [ Unpermitted Renovations and Dual Agency: Key Takeaways from Slatkovsky v Machado ](https://dcmlaw.ca/slatkovsky-v-machado-unpermitted-renovation/) 

  Peter Reinitzer   June 19, 2026  

A Puslinch century farmhouse looked beautifully renovated. The structural work had no building permit, and no one disclosed it. In Slatkovsky v Machado, the Ontario Superior Court held both the vendors and their double-ending agent liable, awarding the buyers $150,318 and confirming that the owner’s permit duty cannot be passed off to a contractor.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/slatkovsky-v-machado-unpermitted-renovation/) 

   Load More

---

### [Our Team](https://dcmlaw.ca/our-team/)

**Published:** June 5, 2024
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

Our Team | Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP        Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

# Our Team

Certified Specialists in Civil Litigation. Proven courtroom advocates in insurance law, medical malpractice, appeals, personal injury and municipal litigation.

 ![The lawyers of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/2025-candid-all-lawyers-boardroom-1920x1080-5.jpg) 

   ## Lawyers

Partners and associates across our Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville offices.

  [ ![David Morin, Managing Partner at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/David-Morin-1080x1080-1.webp) ](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/)### [David Morin](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/)

Managing Partner

 [Municipal Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#municipal-litigation) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#personal-injury) 

- 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
- [(705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740)
- 
 
 [View full profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/david-morin/) 

   [ ![Jim Davidson, Partner at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Jim-Davidson-1080x1080-1.webp) ](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson/)### [Jim Davidson](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson/)

Partner

 [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#insurance-law) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#personal-injury) 

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)
- 
 
 [View full profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/jim-davidson/) 

   [ ![Paul Cahill, Partner at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Paul-Cahill-1080x1080-1.webp) ](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/)### [Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/)

Partner

 [Medical Malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#medical-malpractice) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#personal-injury) 

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)
- 
 
 [View full profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/) 

   [ ![Chris Morrison, Partner at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/chris-morrison-1080x1080-1.webp) ](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/)### [Chris Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/)

Partner

 [Appellate Advocacy](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#appellate-advocacy) [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#insurance-law) 

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)
- 
 
 [View full profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/chris-morrison/) 

   [ ![Ron Strike, Partner at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Ron-Strike-1080x1080-1.webp) ](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike/)### [Ron Strike](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike/)

Partner

 [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#personal-injury) 

- 222 King Street East, Suite 207, Bowmanville, ON L1C 1P6
- [(289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301)
- 
 
 [View full profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike/) 

   [ ![Joel Cormier, Partner at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Joel-Cormier-Headshot-1080x1080-1.webp) ](https://dcmlaw.ca/joel-cormier/)### [Joel Cormier](https://dcmlaw.ca/joel-cormier/)

Partner

 [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#insurance-law) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#personal-injury) 

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)
- 
 
 [View full profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/joel-cormier/) 

   [ ![Peter Reinitzer, Partner at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Peter-Reinitzer-1080x1080-1.webp) ](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer/)### [Peter Reinitzer](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer/)

Partner

 [Municipal Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#municipal-litigation) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#personal-injury) 

- 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
- [(705) 788-3740](tel:+17057883740)
- 
 
 [View full profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/peter-reinitzer/) 

   [ ![Tiffany Usher, Associate at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Tiffany-Usher-1080x1080-1.webp) ](https://dcmlaw.ca/tiffany-usher/)### [Tiffany Usher](https://dcmlaw.ca/tiffany-usher/)

Associate

 [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#insurance-law) 

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)
- 
 
 [View full profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/tiffany-usher/) 

   [ ![Hudson Chalmers, Associate at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Hudson-Chalmers-1080x1080-1.webp) ](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/)### [Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/)

Associate

 [Medical Malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#medical-malpractice) [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#personal-injury) [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#insurance-law) 

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)
- 
 
 [View full profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/hudson-chalmers/) 

   [ ![Kathleen Lefebvre, Associate at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/kathleen-lefebvre-1080x1080-1.png) ](https://dcmlaw.ca/kathleen-lefebvre/)### [Kathleen Lefebvre](https://dcmlaw.ca/kathleen-lefebvre/)

Associate

 [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#insurance-law) [Appellate Advocacy](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#appellate-advocacy) 

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)
- 
 
 [View full profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/kathleen-lefebvre/) 

   [ ![Margaret Klassen, Associate at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/margaret-klassen-1080x1080-1.webp) ](https://dcmlaw.ca/margaret-klassen/)### [Margaret Klassen](https://dcmlaw.ca/margaret-klassen/)

Associate

 [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas/#insurance-law) 

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)
- 
 
 [View full profile →](https://dcmlaw.ca/margaret-klassen/) 

   ## Staff

The law clerks, paralegals and administrative team behind our files.

  ![Madeline Barnes, General Manager at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/madeline-barnes-1080x1080-1.webp) 

### Madeline Barnes

General Manager

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)
- 

   ![Emma Burton, Paralegal at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/emma-burton-1080x1080-1.webp) 

### Emma Burton

Paralegal

- 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
- [(705) 788-3740 ext. 515](tel:+17057883740)
- 

   ![Danielle Cordingley, Office Administrator at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/danielle-cordingley-1080x1080-1.webp) 

### Danielle Cordingley

Office Administrator

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194 ext. 221](tel:+14163601194)
- 

   ![Agnes Dyjach, Law Clerk at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/agnes-dyjach-1080x1080-1.webp) 

### Agnes Dyjach

Law Clerk

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194](tel:+14163601194)
- 

   ![Krystal Garrison, Law Clerk at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/krystal-garrison-1080x1080-1.webp) 

### Krystal Garrison

Law Clerk

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194 ext. 249](tel:+14163601194)
- 

   ![Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP staff member](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/profile-photo-generic-female.jpg) 

### Tanya Gauthier

Accounting

- 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
- [(705) 794-8794](tel:+17057948794)
- 

   ![Cydney Jones, Law Clerk at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/cydney-jones-1080x1080-1.webp) 

### Cydney Jones

Law Clerk

- 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
- [(705) 788-3740 ext. 507](tel:+17057883740)
- 

   ![Monika Kopacz-Raczka, Law Clerk at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/monika-kopacz-raczka-1080x1080-1.webp) 

### Monika Kopacz-Raczka

Law Clerk

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194 ext. 168](tel:+14163601194)
- 

   ![Lesley Mann, Law Clerk at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/lesley-mann-1080x1080-1.jpg) 

### Lesley Mann

Law Clerk

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194 ext. 222](tel:+14163601194)
- 

   ![Christine Marchment, Law Clerk at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/christine-marchment-1080x1080-1.jpg) 

### Christine Marchment

Law Clerk

- 222 King Street East, Suite 207, Bowmanville, ON L1C 1P6
- [(289) 316-1308](tel:+12893161308)
- 

   ![Helen Pozdeev, Law Clerk at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/helen-pozdeev-1080x1080-1.webp) 

### Helen Pozdeev

Law Clerk

- 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
- [(705) 788-3740 ext. 502](tel:+17057883740)
- 

   ![Tania Quinlan, Legal Assistant at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/tania-quinlan-1080x1080-1.webp) 

### Tania Quinlan

Legal Assistant

- 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville, ON P1H 1C4
- [(705) 788-3740 ext. 503](tel:+17057883740)
- 

   ![Elysia Semella, Legal Nurse Consultant at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/elysia-semella-1080x1800-1.jpg) 

### Elysia Semella

Legal Nurse Consultant

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 643-3862](tel:+14166433862)
- 

   ![Anna Stogniy, Manager of Finance at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/annastogniy-1080x1080-1.webp) 

### Anna Stogniy

Manager of Finance

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194 ext. 223](tel:+14163601194)
- 

   ![Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP staff member](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/profile-photo-generic-female.jpg) 

### Eduarda Tavares

Law Clerk

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194 ext. 239](tel:+14163601194)
- 

   ![Tanyka Thomas, Law Clerk at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/tanyka-thomas-1080x1080-1.webp) 

### Tanyka Thomas

Law Clerk

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [(416) 360-1194 ext. 229](tel:+14163601194)
-

---

### [Contact Us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

**Published:** June 5, 2024
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP# Contact Us

Reach our team at any of our three Ontario offices, or request a free consultation below. We respond to every enquiry within one business day.

 [Request Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [  1 (800) 661-7606 ](tel:18006617606) 

 ![Paul Cahill, David Morin, Chris Morrison and Jim Davidson](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/2025-candid-partners-1920x1080-1.jpg) 

    Where to Find Us## Office Locations

  ![220 Bay Street, Toronto office exterior](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/220-bay-street-exterior.png) 

### Toronto

- 220 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J 2W4
- [1 (800) 661-7606](tel:18006617606) (Toll Free)
- [(416) 360-1194](tel:4163601194)
- (416) 360-8469 (Fax)
- 

  ![322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville office](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/322-muskoka-road-north.png) 

### Huntsville

- 322 Muskoka Road 3 North, Huntsville, Ontario P1H 1C4
- [1 (866) 788-3740](tel:18667883740) (Toll Free)
- [(705) 788-3740](tel:7057883740)
- (705) 788-3751 (Fax)
- 

  ![222 King Street East, Bowmanville office](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/222-king-street-east.png) 

### Bowmanville

- 222 King Street East, Suite 207, Bowmanville, ON L1C 1P6
- [1 (877) 652-3201](tel:18776523201) (Toll Free)
- [(289) 316-1301](tel:2893161301)
- (289) 316-0495 (Fax)
- 

     Free, No Obligation## Request Free Consultation

Please complete the form below and provide us with as much detail as possible. We will respond within one business day.

    Common Questions## Frequently Asked Questions

 ### Motor Vehicle Accidents

  What are the most important things to do after an auto accident?[Read this post](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-car-accidents-in-ontario/) for the 7 most important things you need to know after being involved in a motor vehicle accident in Ontario.

   Is there a limitation period to sue for a motor vehicle accident?Yes. In Ontario, you have two years to issue a claim from the date of the motor vehicle accident. There are, however, other notice and application deadlines for accident benefits that must be followed. If you have been involved in a motor vehicle accident, you should promptly seek legal advice to avoid missing any important deadlines.

   What is the most I can claim for my injuries?Broadly speaking there are three categories of damages you can claim:

- general damages (or pain and suffering damages)
- income loss
- cost of care

The *Insurance Act* provides for a number of complicated restrictions and deductions that apply only to motor vehicle accidents. You should request a consultation with a lawyer to get a better sense of what your case might be worth. Some cases involving minor injuries may unfortunately be very limited in terms of what compensation could be available.

   Do you represent clients with respect to their Statutory Accident Benefits claims?Yes. Individuals who have been injured in motor vehicle accidents are eligible to claim no-fault accident benefits to assist with certain accident related expenses including medical and rehabilitation costs, attendant care, and income replacement.

In addition to assisting you with your lawsuit, we can help you with your Accident Benefits claim to ensure you receive the maximum support you need right after your accident.

   What if I was charged for the accident? Can I still bring a lawsuit?Yes, you may still be able to make a claim. Just because you were charged for the motor vehicle accident does not necessarily make you 100% at fault from a civil lawsuit perspective. You may also have significant benefits available to you through your own Accident Benefits insurer.

If there is a significant concern about the liability of the accident, you should contact a personal injury lawyer immediately for legal advice.

 ### Long-Term Disability Insurance Denials

  Should I appeal my disability denial with my insurance company?When an insurance company denies your long-term disability benefits, they will often offer you the opportunity to appeal the decision and/or to provide fresh evidence. For the vast majority of clients, this will be a big waste of time. Once the insurance company has denied your benefits, they are unlikely to reinstate them prior to litigation.

It is our experience that our clients' needs are best served with prompt legal action, which will often bring about a resolution of their claim faster than any internal appeal process with the insurance company.

   If I am on LTD, do I have to apply for CPP-Disability?This is a very common question. Virtually all long-term disability insurance policies have a provision that offsets what you receive from CPP-D against what the insurer must pay you. These provisions will often say something along the lines that the insurance company can deduct CPP-D benefits that you should be receiving but are not, due to a lack of trying.

There may be an issue as to how far you must go to fight for CPP-D benefits if they are denied. It is, however, our general recommendation that any person who is on long-term disability benefits for a long time should at least make an application for CPP-D.

[Contact us](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/#request-free-consultation) to request an opinion on the facts of your specific case.

   Is there a limitation period to sue for a long-term disability denial?In Ontario, there is a general limitation period of two years to sue for a long-term disability denial, which arises from the date of the denial. Long-term disability benefits are contractual and therefore you would want to review your policy to be certain of the limitation period.

There is, however, often no reason to wait to bring a long-term disability claim if you have been denied. At Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP we would typically recommend prompt legal action for any client denied long-term disability benefits.

 ### Occupiers' Liability Claims

  Is there a limitation period to sue for a slip and fall incident?Yes. In Ontario, you have two years to issue a claim from the date of the incident.

It is extremely important to know that with respect to claims against municipalities there may be a 10 day written notice period from the date of the incident. Failure to comply with this notice may result in your case being dismissed.

If you have suffered personal injury from a fall, you should promptly seek legal advice to avoid missing any important deadlines.

   What is the most I can claim for my injuries?Broadly speaking there are three categories of damages you can claim:

- general damages (or pain and suffering damages)
- income loss
- cost of care

The assessment of a personal injury claim can be complicated. You should request a consultation with a lawyer to get a better sense of what your case might be worth.

Some cases involving minor injuries may unfortunately be very limited in terms of what compensation could be available.

   I fell on private property. Can I still bring a lawsuit?Yes.

An owner or occupier of a property can be liable for personal injury arising from their failure to take reasonable care to avoid such injuries. It does not matter whether it was public or private property.

Contact a lawyer now to request a consultation on whether you may have a claim for personal injury arising from an injury on a property.

 ### Medical Malpractice Claims

  Can I sue for medical malpractice?Medical malpractice is complex and challenging. Every case is different.

[Read this post](https://dcmlaw.ca/can-i-sue-for-medical-malpractice/) for the answers to the most important questions every client should be asking when considering whether to pursue a medical malpractice lawsuit.

   Should I make a formal complaint against my physician?The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario ("CPSO") complaint process can be a helpful way to screen a potential medical malpractice claim without having to incur a lot of legal costs. Although most complaints find no wrongdoing on the part of the physician, the CPSO will often uncover obvious breaches in the standard of care that might otherwise not be apparent simply from a review of the medical records.

What the CPSO can do is provide some reassurance that a particular case does appear to have merit, which can in turn help guide decision making with respect to pursuing a claim in medical malpractice.

[Read this post](https://paulcahill.ca/cpso-should-i-make-a-formal-complaint-against-my-doctor/) for more information on whether you should file a formal complaint against your physician.

    We Can Help## Speak With an Experienced Lawyer

Whether your matter involves a motor vehicle accident, a denied long-term disability claim, an occupiers' liability fall or medical malpractice, our team is ready to listen.

 [Request Free Consultation](#request-free-consultation) [  1 (800) 661-7606 ](tel:18006617606)

---

### [Testimonials](https://dcmlaw.ca/testimonials/)

**Published:** June 5, 2024
**Author:** Paul Cahill

**Content:**

In Our Clients' Words# Testimonials

Behind every result is a person who trusted us with a difficult moment. Here are their reviews and their stories, alongside the recognition our lawyers have earned from the profession.

 ![Margaret Klassen of Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/2025-candid-margaret-klassen-1920x1080-1.jpg) 

    Client Reviews## What our clients say.

 [Read More Reviews on Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=Davidson+Cahill+Morrison+LLP+reviews) 

    Client Stories## Video Testimonials

Former clients describe the cases that brought them to our firm, and the outcomes we achieved together.

    Kyle Read ### Kyle Read

Kyle Read sustained a catastrophic brain injury as a passenger in a pickup truck that lost control on a roadway. Ron Strike successfully represented them in this tragic case.

     Ron Beal ### Ron Beal

Ron Beal was injured in a collision when his vehicle was struck violently from behind. Ron Strike and his team were able to achieve a good resolution to his claim.

     Kathryn Pellerin ### Kathryn Pellerin

Ron Strike successfully represented Kathryn Pellerin, who had severe chronic pain and psychological injuries which ended a promising career.

     Mike James ### Mike James

Mike James was wrongfully denied long-term disability benefits and was represented by Paul Cahill.

     Harvey Ward ### Harvey Ward

Harvey Ward speaks about his disability claim that led him to seek help from David Morin.

     Szacon Family ### Szacon Family

Paul Cahill represented the Szacon family after they received a denial on their life insurance policy when their husband and father passed away suddenly.

    Credentials Matter## Recognized by the profession.

Ranked Tier 1 in Best Law Firms in Canada 2026

 [ ![2026 Best Law Firms Canada, Personal Injury Litigation, Tier 1](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2026-best-law-firms-canada-personal-injury-litigation-tier-1.png) ](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/104420/CA) [ ![2026 Best Law Firms Toronto, Medical Negligence, Tier 1](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2026-best-law-firms-toronto-medical-negligence-tier-1.png) ](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/104420/CA) [ ![2026 Best Law Firms Greater Toronto, Insurance Law, Tier 1](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2026-best-law-firms-greater-toronto-insurance-law-tier-1.png) ](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/104420/CA) 

    ### Certified Specialists

We have lawyers who are Certified Specialists in Civil Litigation by the Law Society of Ontario, a designation granted to lawyers who have met established standards of experience and knowledge in their field.

    ### Best Lawyers in Canada

Since 2018, we have had lawyers recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for their work in Insurance Law, Medical Negligence and Personal Injury Litigation.

    Free Consultation## Talk to a lawyer about your case.

Request a free consultation and we will respond within one business day. With offices in Toronto, Huntsville and Bowmanville, we act for clients across Ontario.

 [Request a Free Consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/#consultation) [☎ 1 (800) 661-7606](tel:18006617606)

---

### [Ron Strike](https://dcmlaw.ca/ron-strike/)

**Published:** June 24, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

Counsel

# Ron Strike

"I take pride in helping the little guy get justice in personal injury lawsuits."

A plaintiff-side personal injury lawyer with more than 40 years representing seriously and catastrophically injured clients.

- Bowmanville office
- 
 
 [Contact Ron](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301) 

 [Best Lawyers in Canada](https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/ron-strike/348085) Certified Risk Manager 

    ## About Ron Strike

Ron Strike studied psychology at Queen's University and graduated from Queen's Law in 1981. He was a member of the only Queen's varsity men's hockey team to win an Ontario championship.

Called to the bar in 1983, Ron was a senior partner at Strike Furlong Ford until 2016, when he merged his practice with Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP, where he is now counsel. He practises exclusively in personal injury law. Earlier in his career he did insurance defence work; today he represents plaintiffs only.

Ron has litigated numerous catastrophic injury cases at the local, national and international levels, has represented seriously injured clients for more than 40 years, and has lectured extensively on personal injury. He has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for personal injury litigation since 2024.

He is a member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, the Durham Region Law Association and the Canadian Bar Association, and a Certified Risk Manager. Outside the office, he is a keen golfer, tennis player, skier and windsurfer.

## Practice focus

Ron practises exclusively in personal injury, with a focus on serious and catastrophic injury arising from motor vehicle collisions.

 [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/practice-areas-personal-injury/) 

## Recognition and credentials

- Recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada for Personal Injury Litigation, since 2024
- Called to the Ontario bar in 1983, with more than 40 years representing seriously injured clients
- Certified Risk Manager
- Member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, the Durham Region Law Association and the Canadian Bar Association

  ### Contact

222 King Street East, Suite 207
Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1P6

[(289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301)

 [Request a consultation](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) 

   From the blog

## Recent insights from Ron

Notes on personal injury and life in the Durham community.

  [![Ron Strike at the 2025 Lakeridge Health Foundation Golf Classic](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/ron-strike-lakeridge-health-foundation-golf-classic-2025-1.jpg)](https://dcmlaw.ca/supporting-the-2025-lakeridge-health-foundations-golf-classic/)###  [ Supporting the 2025 Lakeridge Health Foundation’s Golf Classic ](https://dcmlaw.ca/supporting-the-2025-lakeridge-health-foundations-golf-classic/) 

Ron Strike was proud to support the Lakeridge Health Foundation as a Bogey Partner at its 2025 Golf Classic, held July 14 at Coppingwood Golf Club. The event drew 124 golfers and raised more than $185,000 for advanced technology and care at the Oshawa and Whitby hospitals serving Durham Region.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/supporting-the-2025-lakeridge-health-foundations-golf-classic/) 

   [![Image of slippery floor with warning sign with title of the blog post](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/7-steps-to-take-after-a-slip-and-fall-accident-in-ontario.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-steps-to-take-after-a-slip-and-fall-accident-in-ontario/)###  [ 7 Steps to Take After a Slip and Fall Accident in Ontario ](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-steps-to-take-after-a-slip-and-fall-accident-in-ontario/) 

Slip and fall accidents are more common than most people realize, and the aftermath can be costly. This guide explains what counts as a slip and fall under Ontario’s premises liability rules and walks through the practical steps to take right after one, from documenting the scene to protecting your right to compensation.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-steps-to-take-after-a-slip-and-fall-accident-in-ontario/) 

   [![Front End Damaged Motor Vehicle](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Front-End-Damaged-Motor-Vehicle.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-car-accidents-in-ontario/)###  [ What to Do After a Car Accident in Ontario: 7 Key Steps ](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-car-accidents-in-ontario/) 

A car accident is stressful, and what you do at the scene and in the days afterward can affect both your health and any claim. This guide walks through seven steps, from getting to safety and gathering evidence to Ontario’s updated police-reporting rule, accident benefits, and when to call a lawyer, with notes for injured drivers across the Durham region.

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-car-accidents-in-ontario/) 

    [All posts by Ron](https://dcmlaw.ca/author/ron-strike/) 

   The Team

## Ron's team

Ron works with a law clerk in the firm's Bowmanville office, your day-to-day point of contact on a file.

Christine Marchment

Law Clerk

[(289) 316-1308](tel:+12893161308)

   Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

## Work with Ron Strike

If you or a family member has been seriously injured, in a motor vehicle collision or another accident, Ron has spent more than 40 years helping injured people get the justice they deserve. The first conversation is straightforward and without obligation.

 [Contact Ron](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/) [Call (289) 316-1301](tel:+12893161301) 

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP · 222 King Street East, Suite 207, Bowmanville · [dcmlaw.ca](https://dcmlaw.ca/contact-us/)

---

### [Medical Malpractice Lawyers](https://dcmlaw.ca/medical-malpractice-lawyers/)

**Published:** June 25, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

# Medical Malpractice Lawyers

 ![Paul Cahill, David Morin, Chris Morrison and Jim Davidson](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/2025-candid-partners-1920x1080-1.jpg) 

#### Experienced Medical Malpractice Lawyers with a Proven Track Record of Success

Partner [Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/) leads the medical malpractice group at Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP.

Mr. Cahill has proven himself a fearless advocate by a number of successful trial outcomes over the years, including a [$11.5 million judgment](http://paulcahill.ca/blog/f/115-million-jury-verdict-against-negligent-doctor) for medical malpractice causing cerebral palsy against a negligent doctor as well as a recent judgment against a [negligent emergency room physician](https://paulcahill.ca/blog/f/paul-cahill-wins-medical-malpractice-trial-for-brampton-family) who caused the death of a 34 year-old mother of 4 young children.

Mr. Cahill and his team are committed to providing patients with legal representation for serious medical malpractice outcomes arising from:

- Birth Trauma
- Obstetrical and Neonatal Negligence causing Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy and Cerebral Palsy
- Midwife Negligence
- Surgical Errors in Gynecology, Urology, General Surgery, Neurosurgery, Vascular Surgery, Orthopedic Surgery and others
- Post-Operative Care Negligence
- Neurology and Stroke Misdiagnosis
- [Emergency Room Delay](https://dcmlaw.ca/when-seconds-count-protecting-yourself-from-medical-malpractice-in-emergency-rooms/)
- Medication Errors
- Misdiagnosis and Delayed Diagnosis
- Hospital Falls and Neglect
- Lack of Informed Consent
- Nursing Home Negligence

Medical malpractice litigation is highly complex and vigorously defended. Our team of experienced lawyers, led by [Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/paul-cahill/), will provide you with individualized representation tailored to your specific case.

Our medical malpractice team is available to offer guidance and insights into the [complaint process](https://dcmlaw.ca/how-to-make-a-complaint-against-a-physician-to-the-college-of-physicians-and-surgeons-of-ontario-cpso/) with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) and other regulated healthcare professionals.

We will work tirelessly to ensure that you achieve a successful legal outcome for your medical malpractice claim.

#### We Offer Competitive Contingency Fee Representation

We believe that everyone should have access to quality legal representation, regardless of their financial situation.

We offer competitive sliding scale contingency fee representation for medical malpractice claims, which means:

- you don’t pay us anything unless we win your case
- the earlier your case settles, the less you pay in legal fees, and
- if we don’t win, you don’t owe us anything, not even disbursements

Given the cost and complexity of medical malpractice litigation, only select matters will be offered contingency fee agreements.

 ![Hudson Chalmers](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Hudson-Chalmers-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Danielle Cordingley](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/danielle-cordingley-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Madeline Barnes](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/madeline-barnes-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Tanyka Thomas](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/tanyka-thomas-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Paul-Cahill-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Margaret Klassen](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/margaret-klassen-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/agnes-dyjach-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Emma Burton](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/emma-burton-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Joel Cormier](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Joel-Cormier-Headshot-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Cydney Jones](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/cydney-jones-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Krystal Garrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/krystal-garrison-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Kathleen Lefebvre](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/kathleen-lefebvre-1080x1080-1.png) 

 ![Chris Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/chris-morrison-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Monika Kopacz-Raczka](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/monika-kopacz-raczka-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Christine Marchment](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/christine-marchment-1080x1080-1.jpg) 

 ![Jim Davidson](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Jim-Davidson-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Helen Pozdeev](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/helen-pozdeev-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Tania Quinlan](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/tania-quinlan-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![David Morin](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/David-Morin-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Anna Stogniy](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/annastogniy-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Tiffany Usher](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Tiffany-Usher-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![Peter Reinitzer](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Peter-Reinitzer-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 ![](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/lesley-mann-1080x1080-1.jpg) 

 ![Ron Strike](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Ron-Strike-1080x1080-1.webp) 

 [![Jim Davidson](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Jim-Davidson-Portrait-scaled.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Jim-Davidson-Portrait-scaled.webp) 

 [![David Morin](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/David-Morin-Portrait-scaled.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/David-Morin-Portrait-scaled.webp) 

 [![Paul Cahill](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Paul-Cahill-Portrait-scaled.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Paul-Cahill-Portrait-scaled.webp) 

 [![Chris Morrison](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Chris-Morrison-Portrait-scaled.webp)](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Chris-Morrison-Portrait-scaled.webp) 

##  CONTACT US NOW 

 We can help. 

 [ Request Free Consultation ](#request-free-consultation) 

## Millions Recovered for our Clients

## $2.3 Million Trial Judgment

  ![Thompson v. Handler Image of Elisa Shaw](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Thompson-v.-Handler-Image-of-Elisa-Shaw.webp)   

In September, 2023, our lawyers were successful in obtaining judgment after trial in the amount $2.3 million dollars against a [negligent emergency room physician](https://paulcahill.ca/blog/f/paul-cahill-wins-medical-malpractice-trial-for-brampton-family) who caused the death of a 34 year-old mother of 4 young children.

## $700,000 Recovered

  ![Mammogram imaging](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Mammogram-Image.webp)   

 In October, 2023, our lawyers settled a medical malpractice claim arising from a delayed diagnosis of breast cancer that led to the unfortunate death of a mother of two young children. Liability was highly contested.

## $400,000 Recovered

  ![Person laying on side in hospital bed](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Person-Laying-on-Side-in-Hospital-Bed.webp)   

In July, 2023, our lawyers recovered $400,000 for the family of an older patient who died of sepsis after abdominal surgery.

## $4.5 Million Recovered

  ![Person donating blood](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Person-Donating-Blood.webp)   

In May, 2023, our lawyers recovered $4.5 million for a patient who suffered a serious disability after a phlebotomy procedure.

## $11.5 Million Trial Judgment

  ![Kelsey Woods with Mother Bernice Booth](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Kelsey-Woods-with-Mother-Bernice-Booth.webp)   

In July, 2020, our lawyers upheld a $11.5 million trial judgment in the Court of Appeal against a negligent obstetrician that caused cerebral palsy in a twin girl.

##  VICTIM OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE? 

 Know your rights. Contact an experienced medical malpractice lawyer who can help today. 

 [ Request Free Consultation ](#request-free-consultation) 

## Credentials Matter

  ![Certified Specialist logo](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/CS.webp)   

#### Certified Specialists

We have lawyers who are certified specialists in civil litigation by the **Law Society of Ontario**.

  ![Best Lawyers logo](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Best-Lawyers.webp)   

#### Best Lawyers in Canada

Since 2018, we have had lawyers recognized by *The Best Lawyers in Canada* for work in the areas of **Insurance Law**, **Medical Negligence** and **Personal Injury Litigation**

 ![Best Lawyers and Ones to Watch 2026](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/dcmlaw-best-lawyers-and-ones-to-watch-2026.jpg) 

 [ ![2026 Best Law Firm Canada Person Injury Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2026-best-law-firms-canada-personal-injury-litigation-tier-1.png) ](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/104420/CA) 

 [ ![2026 Best Law Firm Toronto Medical Negligence](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2026-best-law-firms-toronto-medical-negligence-tier-1.png) ](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/104420/CA) 

 [ ![2026 Best Law Firm Greater Ontario Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2026-best-law-firms-greater-toronto-insurance-law-tier-1.png) ](https://www.bestlawfirms.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison-llp/104420/CA) 

[ ![Best Lawyers - Firm Logo](https://www.bestlawyers.com/Logos/ListedFirm/104420/CA/20/O/Basic.png "Best Lawyers - Firm Logo") ](https://www.bestlawyers.com/firms/davidson-cahill-morrison/104420/CA)

## Related Posts

  [![Interior of Osgoode Hall](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/osgoode-hall-interior.webp)

 ](https://dcmlaw.ca/shaw-estate-v-handler-court-of-appeal-dismisses-er-doctors-appeal-of-judgment-against-him-relating-to-death-of-34-year-old-mother-of-4/)###  [ Shaw Estate v. Handler – Court of Appeal Dismisses ER Doctor’s Appeal of Judgment Against Him Relating to Death of 34-Year Old Mother of 4 ](https://dcmlaw.ca/shaw-estate-v-handler-court-of-appeal-dismisses-er-doctors-appeal-of-judgment-against-him-relating-to-death-of-34-year-old-mother-of-4/) 

  Paul Cahill   December 16, 2025  

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/shaw-estate-v-handler-court-of-appeal-dismisses-er-doctors-appeal-of-judgment-against-him-relating-to-death-of-34-year-old-mother-of-4/) 

   [![Traumatic Brain Injury - MRI Results](https://dcmlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/traumatic-brain-injury-mri-results.webp)

 ](https://dcmlaw.ca/non-earner-benefits-denied-because-of-medical-malpractice/)###  [ Non-Earner Benefits Denied Because of Medical Malpractice ](https://dcmlaw.ca/non-earner-benefits-denied-because-of-medical-malpractice/) 

  Paul Cahill   December 4, 2024  

 [ Read More » ](https://dcmlaw.ca/non-earner-benefits-denied-because-of-medical-malpractice/) 

## Google Reviews

##  DISCLAIMER 

 Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Amounts recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts of each individual case. Contact us now to request a free valuation of your medical malpractice claim. 

 [ Request Malpractice Review ](#request-free-consultation) 

## Request Free Consultation

 Please complete the form below and provide us with as much detail as possible. We will respond within one business day.

---

### [Terms of Service](https://dcmlaw.ca/terms-of-service/)

**Published:** August 15, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

# Terms of Service

By using the Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP website, you agree to comply with and be bound by the following terms and conditions of use:

- The content of the pages of this website is for your general information and use only. It is subject to change without notice.
- Neither we nor any third parties provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies or errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors to the fullest extent permitted by law.
- Your use of any information or materials on this website is entirely at your own risk, for which we shall not be liable. It shall be your own responsibility to ensure that any products, services or information available through this website meet your specific requirements.
- This website contains material which is owned by or licensed to us. This material includes, but is not limited to, the design, layout, look, appearance and graphics. Reproduction is prohibited other than in accordance with the copyright notice, which forms part of these terms and conditions.
- All trademarks reproduced in this website which are not the property of, or licensed to, the operator are acknowledged on the website.
- Unauthorized use of this website may give rise to a claim for damages and/or be a criminal offence.
- From time to time this website may also include links to other websites. These links are provided for your convenience to provide further information. They do not signify that we endorse the website(s). We have no responsibility for the content of the linked website(s).
- Your use of this website and any dispute arising out of such use of the website is subject to the laws of Ontario.

Thank-you for visiting Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP. If you have any questions or concerns about the content or policies outlined here, please do not hesitate to contact us.

---

### [Privacy Policy](https://dcmlaw.ca/privacy-policy/)

**Published:** August 15, 2024
**Author:** Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

**Content:**

# Privacy Policy

Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP recognizes the importance of safeguarding your privacy and the information collected from our customers and clients. This privacy statement covers the scope of usage of this website and provides details about the information collected from you. This policy states how the information gathered is used and how you can manage it.

Since January 1, 2004, all Canadian organizations engaged in commercial activities have been required to comply with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) and the Canadian Standards Association Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information incorporated by reference into PIPEDA. These obligations extend to lawyers and law firms, including Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP. Lastly, as a professional services firm, we have professional and ethical obligations to keep confidential the information we receive in the context of a lawyer-client and agent-client relationship.

## Information Gathered

For the purpose of processing your requests and transactions, we gather certain personal details from you when you register or signup for any service including a consultation form.

This information may be used to contact you directly when required and to assess your case. However, in most cases, it will be reserved for administrative purposes so that we can review these details in order to provide you with more efficient services.
We respect the privacy of all our customers and clients and assure you that all the personal information collected is kept completely secure. We do not sell, trade, rent, transfer or exchange your information with any third party vendor or affiliate. The information gathered will be released only if it is deemed necessary by law.

We may, in order to provide a more secure service, exchange your personal information with certain trusted companies and organizations for fraud protection and for ensuring a safer transaction gateway.

## Cookies

Our website uses cookies to track your personal preferences when you browse our site. A cookie is a small packet of data sent to your browser from a web server. It is stored on your hard drive and can be recalled to allow easy and quick access to the website upon return. Details such as your contact information, username and password are usually stored in cookies for easy retrieval.

If you do not wish to keep a log of your information, you can configure your browser to reject all cookies or to notify you whether to accept a cookie or not. Disabling the cookies may reduce the functionality of certain aspects of our website. To find out more about enabling and disabling cookies, please check the Help section of your browser.

---


## Categories

### [Medical Malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/category/medical-malpractice/)

**Description:** Medical malpractice, or medical negligence, concerns harm caused when care falls below the standard a reasonable practitioner would have met. Establishing a claim requires expert evidence on both the standard of care and causation, and the issues are often technical and specialty specific. Posts in this category analyze Ontario decisions on standard of care, causation, consent and damages, along with the regulatory and discipline jurisprudence that runs parallel to civil litigation. The aim is to explain what those decisions mean for injured patients and their families, and for the lawyers who represent them. This commentary is background only. The standard of care in any given case is a question for expert evidence, not for a website.

---

### [Firm News](https://dcmlaw.ca/category/firm-news/)

**Description:** News from Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP, including recognitions and rankings, appointments and additions to the firm, speaking engagements and moot court involvement, and the community work our lawyers take part in. For the firm’s legal commentary, see the practice area categories.

---

### [Insurance Law](https://dcmlaw.ca/category/insurance-law/)

**Description:** Insurance law governs the relationship between insurers and the insured, from the wording of a policy to the handling of a claim and the litigation that follows a denial. Posts in this category address coverage disputes, title insurance, long-term disability denials and the duties insurers owe to those they insure in Ontario. The firm acts for insureds and claimants and appears at all levels of court on coverage and good-faith questions. The commentary is written to make a technical area accessible without losing the detail that decides cases. None of it is a substitute for advice on your own policy, which turns on its specific wording and the facts of the claim.

---

### [Personal Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/category/personal-injury/)

**Description:** Personal injury law governs the compensation available to people who are hurt through the carelessness of others, whether in a motor vehicle collision, a fall on unsafe premises, or another preventable incident. Posts in this category examine how Ontario courts assess liability, damages and costs, and how the accident benefits regime interacts with a tort claim. Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP acts for injured plaintiffs at trial and on appeal. The commentary here is written for clients trying to understand the process and for lawyers following the decisions that shape it. Nothing in these posts is legal advice. Every claim turns on its own facts and on the medical and financial evidence behind them.

---

### [Municipal Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/category/municipal-litigation/)

**Description:** Municipal litigation involves claims by and against municipalities and other public authorities, including liability for unsafe roads and sidewalks, the strict statutory notice periods that apply, and disputes connected to defective property and the building approval process. The rules differ in important ways from an ordinary negligence claim. Posts in this category examine how Ontario courts treat municipal liability, notice and the limits on recovery against public bodies, with attention to the deadlines that can defeat an otherwise strong claim. This material is general information. Notice requirements in particular are short and unforgiving, and specific advice should be obtained promptly.

---


## Tags

### [Slip and Fall](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/slip-and-fall/)

**Description:** Injury claims after a slip, trip, or fall, including the duties of property owners and the strict notice deadlines that can bar a claim in Ontario.

---

### [Occupiers' Liability](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/occupiers-liability/)

**Description:** The duty owners and occupiers owe to keep their premises reasonably safe, and their liability when visitors are injured under Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act.

---

### [Emergency Room](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/emergency-room/)

**Description:** Medical malpractice claims arising from emergency department care, where time pressure and high patient volumes can contribute to diagnostic and treatment errors.

---

### [Juries](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/juries/)

**Description:** The role of civil juries in Ontario, including the debate over jury trials and how juries assess liability and damages in personal injury cases.

---

### [Motor Vehicle Accident](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/motor-vehicle-accident/)

**Description:** Claims arising from car, truck, and other motor vehicle collisions in Ontario, covering both the tort claim against the at-fault driver and accident benefits.

---

### [Concussion](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/concussion/)

**Description:** Personal injury claims involving concussion and mild traumatic brain injury, and the evidentiary challenges these often-invisible injuries present.

---

### [Simplified Procedure](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/simplified-procedure/)

**Description:** The streamlined court process for civil claims up to the monetary limit, designed to resolve smaller actions faster and at lower cost.

---

### [Long-Term Disability](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/long-term-disability/)

**Description:** Claims for long-term disability (LTD) benefits, including how to challenge a denial or termination of benefits by a disability insurer.

---

### [Statutory Third Parties](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/statutory-third-parties/)

**Description:** The right of an injured claimant to proceed directly against an at-fault party’s insurer in defined circumstances under Ontario’s Insurance Act.

---

### [Title Insurance](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/title-insurance/)

**Description:** Coverage that protects property owners and lenders against title defects, and the claims and disputes that arise under title insurance policies.

---

### [Cycling Accident](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/cycling-accident/)

**Description:** Injury claims involving cyclists, including the rights of riders hurt by drivers and the cycling laws that apply on Ontario and Toronto roads.

---

### [Impaired Driving](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/impaired-driving/)

**Description:** Civil claims against impaired drivers, which pursue compensation for victims separately from any criminal charges the driver may face.

---

### [CPSO](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/cpso/)

**Description:** The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the regulator of the province’s doctors, and how its complaints process relates to medical malpractice claims.

---

### [Accident Benefits](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/accident-benefits/)

**Description:** No-fault accident benefits available to anyone injured in an Ontario motor vehicle accident, payable regardless of who was at fault.

---

### [Civil Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/civil-litigation/)

**Description:** The firm’s core practice: resolving disputes through the civil courts, from pleadings and motions through trial and appeal.

---

### [Personal Injury Settlement](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/personal-injury-settlement/)

**Description:** How personal injury claims are resolved through settlement, including what affects the value of a claim and how long the process can take.

---

### [Costs](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/costs/)

**Description:** How Ontario courts award legal costs to the successful party, including the consequences of settlement offers and unreasonable litigation conduct.

---

### [Exclusions](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/exclusions/)

**Description:** The exclusion clauses insurers rely on to deny coverage, and how policyholders can challenge a denial under title, property, and other insurance policies.

---

### [Real Estate Negligence](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/real-estate-negligence/)

**Description:** Claims against real estate lawyers, agents, and other professionals whose negligence causes loss in a property transaction.

---

### [Electric Vehicles](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/electric-vehicles/)

**Description:** Emerging legal and insurance issues raised by electric vehicles, including fire risk and how EV technology affects motor vehicle accident claims.

---

### [Non-Earner Benefits](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/non-earner-benefits/)

**Description:** A category of Ontario accident benefits for those left unable to carry on a normal life after a collision who were not employed at the time of the accident.

---

### [Licence Appeal Tribunal](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/licence-appeal-tribunal/)

**Description:** The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), which resolves disputes between accident victims and insurers over statutory accident benefits in Ontario.

---

### [Appeal](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/appeal/)

**Description:** Appellate advocacy and notable appeal outcomes, a core focus of the firm’s practice before the Court of Appeal for Ontario and other appellate courts.

---

### [Rules of Civil Procedure](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/rules-of-civil-procedure/)

**Description:** Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern how civil lawsuits proceed, and the recent amendments reshaping litigation practice.

---

### [Pierringer Agreement](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/pierringer-agreement/)

**Description:** A partial settlement that lets a plaintiff settle with some defendants and continue against the rest, with each remaining defendant liable only for its own share.

---

### [Court of Appeal](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/court-of-appeal/)

**Description:** Decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the firm’s appellate advocacy, including notable wins and significant precedents.

---

### [Fire Loss](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/fire-loss/)

**Description:** Property insurance claims following a fire, including how homeowners can respond when an insurer disputes or denies a fire loss claim.

---

### [Flood](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/flood/)

**Description:** Property insurance and negligence claims arising from flooding and water damage, including coverage denials and the construction defects behind repeat flooding.

---

### [Property Loss](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/property-loss/)

**Description:** Insurance claims and litigation following damage to property, including fire, flood, and the coverage disputes that can arise after a loss.

---

### [Best Law Firm](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/best-law-firm/)

**Description:** Recognition of the firm in the Best Lawyers in Canada and Best Law Firms rankings.

---

### [Trial Decision](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/trial-decision/)

**Description:** Commentary on trial judgments, examining how courts decide liability and damages after hearing the evidence at first instance.

---

### [Building Permit](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/building-permit/)

**Description:** Claims involving building permits, unpermitted construction, and municipal permit oversight, including how they are treated under title insurance policies.

---

### [Construction Negligence](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/construction-negligence/)

**Description:** Claims against builders, contractors, and others whose substandard work causes property damage or financial loss to owners and purchasers.

---

### [Residential](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/residential/)

**Description:** Disputes involving residential property, including home purchases, renovations, defects, and the title insurance issues that affect homeowners.

---

### [Negligent Misrepresentation](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/negligent-misrepresentation/)

**Description:** Claims based on false or careless statements that another party reasonably relied on to its detriment, common in real estate and commercial disputes.

---

### [Damages](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/damages/)

**Description:** How courts measure and award compensation in civil claims, from personal injury and wrongful death to property and economic loss.

---

### [LawPRO](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/lawpro/)

**Description:** LawPRO (the Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company), which provides professional liability insurance to Ontario lawyers and title insurance through TitlePLUS.

---

### [Manitoba Court of King's Bench](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/manitoba-court-of-kings-bench/)

**Description:** Decisions of Manitoba’s superior trial court. As an out-of-province court, its rulings are persuasive but not binding in Ontario.

---

### [Subrogation](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/subrogation/)

**Description:** An insurer’s right to step into its insured’s shoes and recover what it has paid out from the party responsible for the loss.

---

### [Builder's Risk Insurance](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/builders-risk-insurance/)

**Description:** Coverage disputes under builder’s risk (course of construction) policies, which insure projects against loss or damage while construction is underway.

---

### [Breach of Contract](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/breach-of-contract/)

**Description:** Disputes arising when one party fails to perform its contractual obligations, and the remedies available to the other side.

---

### [Summary Judgment](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/summary-judgment/)

**Description:** A procedure for deciding a claim or defence without a full trial where there is no genuine issue requiring one, used to resolve cases efficiently.

---

### [Construction](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/construction/)

**Description:** Litigation arising from construction projects, including disputes over defects, delays, insurance coverage, and the obligations of those who build.

---

### [Surgical Negligence](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/surgical-negligence/)

**Description:** Medical malpractice claims arising from surgical errors, including wrong-site surgery and other preventable never events in the operating room.

---

### [Standard of Care](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/standard-of-care/)

**Description:** The legal benchmark for reasonable professional conduct. In malpractice cases, whether the standard of care was met is a question proven through expert evidence.

---

### [Expert Evidence](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/expert-evidence/)

**Description:** The role of expert witnesses in civil litigation, including the rules governing their reports and the central importance of expert opinion in proving standard of care.

---

### [OTLA](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/otla/)

**Description:** The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA), and the firm’s participation in its conferences, advocacy, and events.

---

### [Speaking Engagement](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/speaking-engagement/)

**Description:** Conference presentations, seminars, and other speaking appearances by the firm’s lawyers across the legal profession.

---

### [Webinar](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/webinar/)

**Description:** Online presentations and webinars featuring the firm’s lawyers on legal and practice-related topics.

---

### [Law Firm Management](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/law-firm-management/)

**Description:** Insights on running and growing a legal practice, including business strategy and leadership for lawyers.

---

### [Moot Court](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/moot-court/)

**Description:** The firm’s involvement in law school moot court competitions, including its lawyers serving as judges for advocacy and trial moots.

---

### [Causation](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/causation/)

**Description:** The requirement to prove that a defendant’s negligence actually caused the plaintiff’s injury or loss, often the decisive issue in malpractice and injury claims.

---

### [Ontario Superior Court](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/ontario-superior-court/)

**Description:** Decisions of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the province’s main trial court, where most civil and personal injury actions are heard.

---

### [Latent Defects](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/latent-defects/)

**Description:** Hidden property defects that a buyer could not discover on reasonable inspection, and a vendor’s potential liability for failing to disclose them.

---

### [Delayed Diagnosis](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/delayed-diagnosis/)

**Description:** Medical malpractice claims arising from a missed or delayed diagnosis, where the failure to identify a condition in time causes avoidable harm.

---

### [Community Involvement](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/community-involvement/)

**Description:** The firm’s charitable giving, volunteer work, and support for the communities it serves across Ontario.

---

### [Offer to Settle](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/offer-to-settle/)

**Description:** Formal settlement offers under the Rules of Civil Procedure and their cost consequences, which reward reasonable offers and penalize parties who refuse them.

---

### [Catastrophic Injury](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/catastrophic-injury/)

**Description:** Claims involving the most serious injuries, which meet the catastrophic impairment threshold under Ontario’s auto insurance regime and unlock enhanced benefits.

---

### [Commercial Litigation](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/commercial-litigation/)

**Description:** Disputes between businesses and over commercial relationships, including shareholder, contract, and corporate governance issues.

---

### [Corporate Governance](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/corporate-governance/)

**Description:** How a corporation’s internal structure, directors, and decision-making authority affect its legal rights, including its standing to bring or defend a lawsuit.

---

### [Bankruptcy and Insolvency](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/bankruptcy-and-insolvency/)

**Description:** Issues where insolvency meets civil litigation, including how bankruptcy and corporate dissolution affect a party’s ability to sue or be sued.

---

### [Abuse of Process](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/abuse-of-process/)

**Description:** The doctrine of abuse of process in Ontario civil litigation: when a court will step in to prevent the unfair or improper use of its own procedures.

---

### [Awards & Recognition](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/awards-recognition/)

**Description:** Honours, rankings, and professional distinctions earned by the firm and its lawyers across the legal profession.

---

### [Medical Malpractice](https://dcmlaw.ca/tag/medical-malpractice/)

**Description:** Claims against doctors, hospitals, and other health-care providers whose negligent care injures patients, a core area of the firm’s litigation practice.

---