Track Record
Our clients expect results and we deliver. Our Northern Ontario law firm is backed by a strong team of lawyers and an impressive track record spanning four decades with more than 300 court trials and appeals across a spectrum of civil litigation disputes.
Our reputation as trial hardened lawyers is evidenced by our courtroom successes and our history of negotiated fair and favourable resolutions for our clients.
We are proud of our record and invite you to browse some of our cases and contact any member of our litigation team to discuss how we can put our experience to work for you.
Browse our archives:
Insurance Law
Aviva v. Economical Mutual and Unifund Assurance, private arbitration, May 24, 2016, Arbitrator Bialkowski
Tara successfully brought a priority dispute against Economical and Unifund for the payment of accident benefits. The claimant was a minor child and a passenger in a loaner vehicle driven by his father at the time of the accident. The vehicle had been provided by a garage while the mother’s vehicle was being repaired. The garage vehicle was insured by Aviva at all material times. His parents each had individual policies of insurance with Economical (father) and Unifund (mother). Priority had been denied on the basis that Aviva was equal in priority as a temporary substitute automobile and that the minor child was not “principally financially dependent” on one of his parents. Arbitrator Bilakowski found that the minor child was dependent on his parents as named insureds under the Economical and Unifund policies. As such, Economical and Unifund were ahead of Aviva in priority and the claimant has the unexercised discretion as to which of the two insurers were to provide benefits.
-
Castonguay Construction (2000) Ltd. v. Commonwealth Plywood Co., 2012 ONSC 3487 (CanLII)
Eric Williams and Kelly Hart successfully represented a contractor, Castonguay, in a motion seeking to dismiss Castonguay’s third party claim against its engineer, Zenix, who argued that the claim ought to be precluded on the basis that if Castonguay had obtained the insurance required by way of its contract with the owner (Plaintiff), Zenix would have been a beneficiary of that insurance.
The Court found that even if Castonguay had obtained the insurance, it was not was not plain or obvious that a claim for contribution or indemnity by Castonguay related to the services of Zenix would be precluded. Zenix was not afforded the benefit of the covenant to insure as it was not party to that agreement nor was it obvious that the parties to the contract intended to extend the benefits of insurance coverage to the losses involved. The motion to dismiss the claim as frivolous or vexatious was denied.
-
Childs v. Desormeaux, (2006) SCC 18, (2004) 71 O.R. (3d) 195 (C.A.), (2002) 217 D.L.R. (4th) 217 (SCJ)
This case was one of a series of actions started against "social hosts" represented by Eric Williams from trial to the Supreme Court of Canada. In what the Globe and Mail called one of the most significant cases of 2007, Williams Litigation Lawyers successfully defended the hosts of a social gathering after one of their guests caused a serious motro vehicle accident- leading to a precedent-setting Supreme Court of Canada statement on individual responsibility and alcohol consumption. Legal observers have opined that this may be the most important tort case in Canada in thirty years.
-
Thériault et al v. Lanthier, 2010 ONSC 655 (CanLII)
Kelly Hart successfully defended at trial the Township of Champlain against allegations of negligent building inspection stemming from work undertaken 20 years earlier.
St. Prix-Alexander v. Home Depot of Canada Inc. 2008 CarswellOnt 22 (S.C.J.)
Paul Muirhead defended a case involving an injury at a Home Depot Store. Although the plaintiff was successful in her claim on liability, Paul was able to defeat the claims for past loss of income and a substantial future loss of income.
-
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company v. Herbison (2007) 3 S.C.R. 393
Our firm successfully appealed a Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada on the “use and operation” of a motor vehicle that arose out of an unusual hunting accident.
Glenview Iron & Metal Ltd. v. National Frontier Insurance Co. (2002), 37 C.C.L.I. (3d) 156; 2002 CarswellOnt 1368
Paul Muirhead defended the insurer in a case brought by the insured for payment of the proceeds of a property damage policy and business interruption insurance policy.
702535 Ontario Inc. v. Non -Marine Underwriters, Lloyds of London (2000) 184 D.L.R. (4th) 687 (C.A.), (1997) 48 O.T.C. 256 (Gen.Div.)
This action involved a fire loss of the plaintiff's hotel and the alleged failure of the insurer to pay indemnity in circumstances where it would be liable for bad faith and thus consequential damages. The action was dismissed against the insurer on the facts and upheld by the Court of Appeal. This is a leading decision dealing with the circumstances when consequential damages might be payable by an insurer for breach of an insurance policy and the circumstances under which a bad faith claim may succeed.
Graces (Litigation Guardian of) v. Carleton Board of Education 2000 CarswellOnt 2325, [2000] CA C31030.
Following a successful defence of this school liability case before a jury in 1998, Paul Muirhead was the respondent at the Court of Appeal where the Appellant Court found no errors on the part of the Trial Judge and dismissed the Appeal with costs.
Garas v. Roy Estate; Greiss v. Roy Estate [1999] O.J. No. 273
Paul Muirhead successfully defended his client in this motor vehicle jury trial where it was found that his client did not cause or contribute to the plaintiff's injuries.
K. (L.) v. Children's Aid Society of Lanark [1998], 19 C.P.C. (4th) 195 (Ont. G.D.)
Paul Muirhead served as lead counsel on this case seeking the dismissal of various claims and a declaration that the plaintiffs' had commenced numerous actions alleging issues that had already been decided. He was successful in having the plaintiffs declared vexatious litigants and therefore unable to commence any new actions without prior court approval.
SunAlliance Insurance Company v. Commercial Union Assurance Company [1991] O.J. No. 425 (H.C.J.).
In this dispute between two insurers arguing over which was responsible for providing primary coverage for damages arising from a serious motor vehicle accident, Chris Reil acted as co-counsel for the defendant insurer—and helped lead the case to successful dismissal.
Saikaley v. Commonwealth Insurance Company, (1989) (Ont. H. C. J.) unreported
Chris Reil served as co-counsel defending the insurer in this arson claim, satisfying the court that the fire in question was incendiary and had been arranged by the insured. The court found the insured's failure to deliver a proof of loss was fatal to his claim, rendering him not entitled to relief. The action was dismissed.
Personal Injury
Chaudhary v. Kabir, 2012 ONSC 4985
The Defendant brought a motion before Justice Ray to remove Plaintiff’s counsel on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest. Tara, who was defending the motion, was successful in having the motion dismissed with costs.
-
Leighton v. Best, 2014 ONCA 667
Ms. Barber acted as agent for the Plaintiff and successfully argued to extend the time to file a Notice of Appeal. The Plaintiff wished to appeal a decision dismissing his motion for a declaration that the Plaintiff’s award of damages in his personal injury action would survive the Defendant’s discharge from bankruptcy. The Plaintiff filed the Notice of Appeal several months late. The Court of Appeal concluded that it was in the interest of justice to allow the Plaintiff to file the Notice of Appeal. The Plaintiff, with his original counsel, was ultimately successful on the appeal.
Tom Cannon & Associates Ltd. v. British Aviation Insurance and McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd (2001) 142 O.A.C. 282 (C.A.), (1999
Eric Williams successfully represented the plaintiff in a claim for damages when his helicopter crashed. The plaintiff succeeded at trial and appeal in holding both the insurer and the manufacturer liable for negligence.
Commercial Litigation
1168760 Ontario Inc. c/o R&R Realty et al. v 67006037 Canada Inc. and Denis Bertrand, 2017 ONSC 5149
Eric Williams and Jeremy Rubenstein successfully represented the Plaintiffs at trial in this matter. The Plaintiffs were the beneficiaries of a parcel of land that was being held in trust for them by one of the Defendants (who was also a beneficiary). The parcel of land was purchased and held for the purposes of being turned into a residential development in the future. However, the trustee Defendant sold the property to his son’s friend under suspicious circumstances and without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiffs. Eric and Jeremy successfully argued that the Defendant trustee was in violation of his obligations as trustee, that he was a “fraudulent person” under the Land Titles Act, and that the Defendant purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Of note, the Court accepted the Plaintiff’s interpretation of “fictitious person” under the Land Titles Act in finding that the vendor was a fraudulent person, which was the first time this term had been judicially considered in this context. Ultimately, the Court undid the fraudulent transaction, declared the Plaintiffs’ interests in the property, and ordered the rectification of the title of the property.
-
Ward v. Manulife (2007) 288 D.L.R. (4th) 733 (Ont. C.A.)
This was a classic David-and-Goliath scenario. Mr. Ward was terminated by one of the country's largest financial institutions after 30 years of service-and had his retirement monies withheld. Eric Williams led the team that successfully represented Mr. Ward's case: the defendant corporation was ordered to pay Mr. Ward what he was owed as well as damages for breach of contract and fiduciary duty-and the second-highest punitive damages ever awarded in a commercial case in Canada.
Toronto-Dominium Bank v. Pella/Hunt Corp. 10 O.R. (3d) 634 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.)
This case involved a novel issue involving the law of restitution. Chris Reil successfully represented the bank, which the court held was entitled to recover monies it had paid out to a customer’s creditor under a mistake of fact.
-
Arcand v. Abiwyn Co-Operative, 2010 FC 529 (CanLII)
Kelly Hart successfully represented the non-profit Abiwin Co-Operative in the Federal Court of Canada where it was held that a previous settlement between the Co-Op and one of its members precluded her from raising the same complaint in a new forum.
Sewell v. Botros [2005] O.J. No. 4970; Court of Appeal File No. C43227
Paul Muirhead successfully represented the mortgagor on this issue of whether or not a mortgagee can declare a mortgage to be in default.
Metcalfe Realty v. 990982 Ontario Inc. [1998] O.J. No. 3637 (C.A.)
Chris Reil represented the landlord and obtained a summary judgment against the defaulting tenant for both arrears of rent and the present value of the future rent to the end of the term. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Hewitt v. Hillary Cleaners et al, (1998) (Ont. H. C. J.), unreported
Chris Reil successfully represented the plaintiffs in this action against a cleaning company after a break-enter-and-theft was facilitated by a former employee of the defendant. The Court held the defendant was negligent in hiring an employee with an extensive criminal record without performing a proper background check, and for failing to warn the plaintiffs after discovering her criminal background.
Barnabe v. Touhey (1993) O.J. No. 438 (Gen.Div.), (1994) 18 O.R. (3d) 370 (CA)
Eric Williams successfully represented a number of applicants in the breakup of a legal partnership. A key issue in the dispute was the suitability of having the court conclude the partnership court given specific wording in the partnership agreement and the division of partnership assets.
Professional Liability
-
Broesky v. Lüst, 2011 ONSC 167 (CanLII)
Eric Williams and Kelly Hart successfully defended a solicitor at trial involving a scope of retainer dispute. The court confirmed that any duty to a client is limited to the scope of the retainer. A “limited retainer” describes circumstances such as where a solicitor is conducting a real estate transaction without search of title and advises the client that the work being done is less than usual.
This is differentiated from this case where the solicitor was retained for a disability claim and advised the client orally of other potential claims. While the solicitor orally confirmed his non-retainer on the other claims, he did not put this in explicitly in writing. This was not a case of limited retainer, and the failure to send a letter of non-retainer was not a breach of the standard of care. The trial decision was upheld at the Court of Appeal.
-
Ugarrit Inc. v. Pooran, 2013 ONSC 6713
In Ugarrit Inc. v. Pooran, 2013 ONSC 6713, the plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved to add two lawyers as party defendants to an existing negligence action, which arose from a fire loss claim that had become statute barred. Ms. Barber represented one of the two lawyers, successfully arguing that the lawyer was never retained to advance a fire loss claim. The motion against both lawyers was dismissed.
-
The Oblates of Mary Immaculate et al. v. 3220605 Canada Inc. (c.o.b. Life Lease Associates of Canada), John T. Clark, Clarks, et al., [2007] O.J. No. 3336, (SCJ) (Court of Appeal hearing pending)
Eric Williams successfully represented the defendant solicitor and law firm (John T. Clark, Clarks), against claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence, who advised a client on the application of the Planning Act and the Residential Complex Sales Representation Act to the construction of a 50 unit life lease housing complex.
Employment Litigation
-
Bois v. MD Physician Services Inc. 2016 ONSC 8133
Ms. Barber, acted for the Defendant Summary Judgment Motion brought by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claimed entitlement to an unpaid bonus which his employer, the Defendant, refused to pay on the grounds that the Plaintiff forfeited his entitlement to the bonus payment when he resigned his job. The Court found that the Plaintiff was aware of the active employment clause for the payment of the bonus, and that the clause was clear and unambiguous. The Court also found that the active employment clause complied with the Employment Standards Act. The Plaintiff’s case was dismissed.
-
Zorn-Smith v. Bank of Montreal (2003) 31 C.C.E.L. (3d) 267 (S.C.J.)
Our firm represented the plaintiff in Canada’s first wrongful dismissal case to see damages awarded to an employee for burnout.
Murphy v. Canadian Tire Corp. [1991] O.J. No. 2103
Paul Muirhead represented the employer in this wrongful dismissal case, which found the employer was correct in terminating with cause.