Thomson Rogers, on behalf of the Plaintiff, brought a motion to compel a Defendant’s compliance with a previous Court Order, since after months of inquiries from Thomson Rogers, the Defendant had refused to provide any meaningful update on his efforts to comply. That update and (partial) compliance with the Order was only provided after Thomson Rogers filed its motion. The Judge concluded that the Plaintiff had acted reasonably in bringing the motion and the Defendant, in refusing to co-operate prior to the motion, had not. The Defendant’s pugilistic approach was condemned by the Court by means of an Order for costs to the Plaintiff payable on a substantial indemnity basis.

Read the endorsement here.

In this case, Thomson Rogers represented the Plaintiff/Appellant, who was suing his insurer and its two adjuster employees regarding the insurer’s denial of the Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits. On a motion brought before a Judge, the insurance adjusters successfully had the Statement of Claim against them struck on the basis that there was no cause of action against them, personally, since they had been carrying out their regular duties of employment. The Plaintiff appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal and the appeal was granted; specifically, the motion Judge’s Order was varied to allow the Plaintiff leave to amend the Statement of Claim in order to plead the allegations against the adjusters with greater particularity.

Read the decision from The Court of Appeal of Ontario here.

Some Defendants were bringing a motion to require the Plaintiffs (who resided outside of Ontario) to post security for costs (i.e. to pay money into court pending the outcome of the case in the event that the Plaintiffs were unsuccessful and may be responsible for paying all or part of the Defendants’ legal bill). Prior to that motion for security for costs, Thomson Rogers, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, brought a motion seeking to compel the Defendants to be examined for discovery (i.e. to answer questions under oath) before the hearing of the security for costs motion. Ms. Gilbert argued the motion on behalf of the Plaintiffs and was successful: the Defendants were ordered to be examined for discovery before the return date of the security for costs motion. The significance of this outcome is that the Plaintiffs should ultimately be in a better position to respond to the Defendants’ security for costs motion with the further information that they should be able to obtain at the Defendants’ discoveries.

Pervan et al. v. Jackson et al. Proceedings

Following the settlement of his personal injury case and a Consent Judgment, the Plaintiff was forced to bring an action pursuant to section 258(1) of the Insurance Act to compel one of two insurers, Gore Mutual Insurance Company or Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, to pay the Judgment from the proceeds of its insurance policy.

By way of background, the Plaintiff sustained serious injuries when the vehicle in which he was a passenger crashed. The driver and owner of the vehicle (“the Defendants”) were insured by Gore. Gore took the position that the Defendants had failed to co-operate in their Defence and had, therefore, breached a term of their policy. If true, Gore would have been permitted to reduce its coverage from the $2 million policy limits to the statutory minimum in Ontario of $200,000 (which amount would not have been enough to satisfy the Plaintiff’s claims for damages). Since the Plaintiff had his own policy with Allstate with limits of $1 million, he added Allstate as a Defendant for underinsurance coverage. The parties ultimately settled the case in terms of the damages but the two insurers continued to fight over which insurer had to pay the damages.

A separate action was brought to have a Judge decide whether Gore’s off-coverage position was meritorious. The Judge found that the owner of the vehicle had not breached her policy with Gore, such that Gore had to respond to the Plaintiff’s claims up to its full policy limits of $2 million and, therefore, pay the monies owed under the Judgment.

Ruddell v. Gore, 2018 ONSC 3932 (2018-06-22) – Endorsement

Wawanesa sought to send the Plaintiff to four Defence medical examination; all or which requests were made after pre-trial. Notwithstanding Wawanesa’s breach of the Rules, the Plaintiff was agreeable to attending one but not four Defence medicals. Wawanesa insisted upon the Plaintiff attending all four and proceeded with a motion. The motion was dismissed but for the one assessment, the Plaintiff had always been willing to attend. Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed. Wawanesa was chastised by both the Superior Court and the Divisional Court for failing to comply with the Rules regarding the time for serving expert reports.

Babcock v. Destefano, 2017 ONSC 276 (2017-01-13) – Reasons for Decision (Motion to Leave to Appeal)

Babcock v. Destefano, 2016 ONSC 5698 (2016-09-14) – Costs Decision

Babcock v. Destefano, 2016 ONSC 5352 (2016-08-24) – Citation

This was an action against Dr. John Chong in which it was alleged that his medical management of his patient, Janet Thornhill, was negligent.

2016 ONSC 6353 (CanLII) – Judgment

UPDATE (April 2, 2019):  The College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) reviewed the care that Dr. Chong provided to Janet Thornhill over the course of over 10 years. On April 2, 2019, the CPSO released its written Decision, which considered the Trial Decision as well as the expert reports that were used at trial. In its April 2, 2019 Decision, the CPSO found that Dr. Chong breached the standard of care in his treatment of Janet’s cancer. The CPSO cautioned Dr. Chong about his charting practices, the poor quality of his assessments and his misplaced psychotherapeutic approach to Janet’s painful tumour. The College also noted that contrary to his claim of being an Occupational Medicine Specialist, Dr. Chong was not entitled to hold himself out as a specialist in Occupational Medicine, having not received that designation from the Royal College. As indicated in the Decision, Dr. Chong entered into an Agreement with the CPSO that will significantly restrict his practice and his stated qualifications. This CPSO Decision is yet another victory for Janet and a further public affirmation of the courage she has displayed. Thanks to Janet, Dr. Chong’s current and future patients will hopefully be better informed and will receive better care from this physician.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) Decision

This action involved a slip and fall that took place on November 1, 2007. The plaintiff was drinking heavily at several different bars and restaurants located on Danforth Avenue in the City of Toronto. The last of the establishments visited by Mr. Willis that night was operated by the defendant Pentagram Inc. It was at Pentagram that Wills fell while descending a staircase on his way to use the washroom.

As a result of the fall, Mr. Wills suffered very serious injuries. Leaving him a quadriplegic living in an assisted living facility operated by the March of Dimes.

View Reasons for Decision (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

This Application was about insurance coverage issues.  Ms. Baughan was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident that took place in the United States Virgin Islands. The sole question that needed to be decided on the Application was whether the term “United States of America” ought to be interpreted to include the United States Virgin Islands for purposes of accident benefits and underinsurance coverage.

View Reasons for Decision (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

View Endorsement (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

View Reasons for Decision (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

View Reasons for Decision (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

View Endorsement (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

In personal injury litigation, the concept of liability/fault is not “black or white;” meaning, a car accident, slip and fall, or other traumatic event causing injury need not be the fault of one person or the other.  Rather, there may be circumstances where the injured person bringing the lawsuit (the “Plaintiff”) can be held at-fault … Continued

It is not uncommon for people injured in a trauma (i.e. car accident, trip or slip and fall, medical negligence, etc.) to wonder what their case may be worth. Indeed, it is important to consider the potential value of the case from the outset because the reality is that personal injury lawsuits can be time-consuming, … Continued

Thomson Rogers Webinar Series: Considerations for “Participant” and “Litigation” Experts Thank you to everyone who attended our Thomson Rogers Webinar Series “Considerations for “Participant” and “Litigation” Experts” held January 29, 2021 and conducted by Thomson Rogers’ personal injury lawyers Robert Ben, Deanna Gilbert and Lucy Jackson. In this session, the following is discussed: Difference Between … Continued

Thomson Rogers lawyers Robert Ben, Deanna Gilbert and Lucy Jackson will be discussing “Considerations for “Participant” and “Litigation” Experts” in our Thomson Rogers Webinar Series on Friday,  January 29 at 11:00 am. To register please click here. To view all previous Thomson Rogers Webinar Series please click here.

Thomson Rogers Webinar Series: The Burden of Proof: Proving Losses and Causation     Thank you to everyone who attended our Thomson Rogers Webinar Series “The Burden of Proof: Proving Losses and Causation” held September 25, 2020 conducted by Thomson Rogers’ personal injury lawyers Robert Ben, Deanna Gilbert and Lucy Jackson. Webinar Highlights:   • … Continued

Thomson Rogers Webinar Series: Techniques for Success in AB Claims Thank you to everyone who attended our Thomson Rogers Webinar Series “Techniques for Success in AB Claims” held July 10, 2020 conducted by Thomson Rogers’ personal injury lawyers Darcy Merkur, Deanna Gilbert and Lucy Jackson. To view all previous Thomson Rogers Webinar Series please click … Continued

Thomson Rogers represents R.B. (the “Plaintiff”) who sued his insurer (“RBC”) and two insurance adjusters (the “RBC Employees”) for damages that he suffered as a consequence of the Defendants’ termination of his long-term disability benefits. More specifically, the Plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $1 million for breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and … Continued

With some Ontarians hesitant to take the TTC during COVID-19, and with the City of Toronto expanding bicycle lanes, there will likely be more cyclists on the road than usual. If you are a cyclist that has been injured by being struck or “doored” by a car and are considering whether to contact a personal … Continued

On April 2, 2020, Thomson Rogers lawyer Deanna Gilbert discussed “Four considerations for surveillance and Facebook evidence” with David Kitai of the Law Times. In a recent case – Nemchin v. Green – the trial judge excluded surveillance and Facebook evidence and Deanna Gilbert broke down the implications of this decision into 4 major points for … Continued

With part of Toronto’s Line 1 subway shut down for seven hours on February 13, 2020 and nearly 100 shuttle buses running as back-up for commuters, this is a good time to remind the public of the special rules that apply to victims who have been injured in an accident involving a public transit vehicle … Continued

Ontarians were horrified when 14-year-old Devan Bracci-Selvey was stabbed to death in front of his mother outside of Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in Hamilton. His mother has reported to news outlets that she had previously complained to the school that Devan was being bullied. Devan’s alleged assailants have been charged by the Hamilton Police … Continued

We are proud to announce that 13 Thomson Rogers partners have been selected for inclusion in the 14th Edition of The Best LawyersTM in Canada. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation.  Lawyers are not required or … Continued

In the recent decision of Nemchin v. Green, [2019] ONCA 634 (CanLII), the Ontario Court of Appeal provided further guidance on the use of Schedule B documents including surveillance and Facebook at the trial of a personal injury action.  The Plaintiff in Nemchin alleged to suffer from disabling PTSD arising from a motor vehicle crash, … Continued

PIA Law and the Toronto ABI Network co-host the Back to School 10th Anniversary Conference. This year’s conference is titled, “Mental Health: Navigating Life After Trauma”. In addition to the conference, the Awards of Excellence in Brain Injury Rehabilitation will be presented in collaboration with the Ontario Brain Injury Association. This conference will be of special interest to health … Continued

On April 27, 2019, personal injury lawyer Deanna Gilbert braved the cold weather and muddy conditions and ran in the Head for the Hills 5K in support of Brain Injury Association of Niagara (BIAN). Thomson Rogers has been a proud sponsor of the 5K Cross Country Race since 2012. The annual event takes place in … Continued

We are proud to announce that 16 Thomson Rogers partners have been selected for inclusion in the 13th Edition of The Best LawyersTM in Canada. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Almost 87,000 industry … Continued

A Divisional Court decision upholding a woman’s entitlement to attendant care benefits offers guidance on the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule’s controversial “incurred expense” provisions, according to the injured plaintiff’s lawyer. The decision in Helmer v. Belairdirect Insurance Company revolved around the May 6, 2016 motor vehicle accident that injured Belinda Helmer, the owner and operator … Continued

Thomson Rogers, in collaboration with Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital and March of Dimes Canada, is proud to host the Children & Youth with Brain Injuries Practical Strategies Workshop from June 7-8, 2018, at the Lexington Hotel & Conference Centre in Sudbury, Ontario. Day 1: Practical skills workshop The focus of this workshop is: To recognize … Continued

Ontario has recently made changes that will lift the cap on damage awards before they will affect the eligibility for Ontario Disability Support Program claims. Lawyers say this can help give more flexibility when negotiating damages that could include structured settlements and allow their clients to keep their benefits. Deanna Gilbert, a partner with Thomson … Continued

In 2014, my Partner, Sloan H. Mandel, and I co-authored a paper entitled “Advancing Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Claims under the Family Law Act” (the “original paper”). The purpose of this paper is to provide personal injury lawyers with an update on some statutory changes and case law affecting Family Law Act [1] claims. A BRIEF … Continued