If you have been injured in Ontario there are time limitations to make a claim. To ensure your rights you should contact us for a free consultation regarding your claim.
Our civil litigation practice handles:
We provide legal representation to those who have been injured, physically or psychologically, as a result of the negligence or wrongdoing of another person, company, government agency, or other entity. We are especially knowledgeable and have more experience with regard to the area of law known as tort law, which includes civil wrongs and economic or non-economic damages to a person’s property, reputation, or rights.
We handle cases that fall under tort law (civil litigation) including, but not limited to: work injuries, automobile and other accidents, defective products, medical mistakes, slip and fall accidents, and more.
My client was an enterprising young woman who had successfully run her
own business when she was taken ill with a chronic and debilitating
syndrome. She could not work and was forced to go on disability. The insurer
provided her with monthly disability payments for a few years until they
decided that she was well enough to go back to work. My client and her
doctors disputed this but the insurer immediately stopped all payments to
her and we took them to court to get them back. Without the disability
payments it was going to be difficult for my client to survive the years it
would take for this lawsuit to come to trial.
The typical pattern prior to this case had been for disability insurers not
to be ordered to make any interim payments to an insured where they disputed the
entitlement. The obligation to pay was something that was traditionally left
to be decided at trial. Of course that put a lot of pressure on the disabled
person to settle for a smaller amount than they were necessarily entitled to
in order to receive some funds.
In this case the Court was asked to order the insurer to make interim
payments to my client until the trial was reached. The Court agreed and the
insurer was required to reinstate the payments that they had previously
suspended. As the Judge said A:
The Insured's vulnerability and reliance on the Insurer makes the Insurer
subject to a duty of utmost good faith to the Insured in assessing and
settling the claim. The insurer had previously accepted her claim and they
should not be free to unilaterally stop it.
Not long after the insurer settled with my client on terms that were acceptable to her.
My client was a widow with three young children whose husband had died by
drowning at a public beach. The man was a non-swimmer who thought he was in
a safe and shallow part of the roped-in area. He was wrong. The rope had
been placed too close to a precipitous drop and he soon found himself
over his head.
The Municipality resisted the lawsuit by arguing that the rope was placed
where they had always placed it and that was a safe and secure area.
Besides, they argued, they had an independent witness who claimed that the
non-swimmer had gone outside the safety zone.
The problem was, no one had talked to the independent witness to ask him
about whether he was aware of there being a steep decline next to the
roped-in area. When he was finally asked, he said sure there was a steep
drop, it had been there for years. The allegation that the deceased had gone
outside the safety zone disappeared once it was clear how dangerous the area
was for a non-swimmer. The insurance company quickly settled for just under
1 million dollars.
For a free consultation regarding your legal matters
contact us today.