• FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

The Laywers

‘FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education’

The information provided below is not legal advice, and it may not apply in every situation. FAIR is not a legal service and we do not recommend particular lawyers or firms. We do not provide legal advice. This page is for information purposes only.

ALERT

We are hearing about more and more cases where the time limitations for filing have lapsed due to a failure by a plaintiff’s legal representative to meet deadlines. Claimants should stay informed of what is happening with their files and forms and ask the questions about filing dates and limitations. Please see some of the decisions and articles listed at the bottom of this page for details

More information on choosing a lawyer or if you have issues with your legal bill here.

***************************************

FAIR does not accept responsibility for comments, opinions, statistical information etc. associated with the links listed below. Any opinions, points of view, etc. are not necessarily shared by FAIR.
 

 

 

 

Mulhall v Fraser, 2017 ONSC 6551 (CanLII)

[54]     In this case, neither the original materials filed nor the subsequent affidavit of Mr. Zarek sworn September 26, 2017, provides little information concerning the circumstances in which the new retainer agreement dated May 1, 2016 was executed apart from Mr Zarek’s responding affidavit sworn October24, 2017(para.17) stating that it was fair. I have serious concerns that the fee agreement, that the solicitor in his materials relied on, was signed on behalf of an incapable party on the eve of settlement, approximately 15 years into the solicitor and client relationship. I also note as outlined at paragraph [44] above that in the updated affidavit sworn September 26, 2017, Mr. Zarek suggests yet another amount for fees. However, the point remains that there is no explanation or information provided relating to the new fee agreement. In Batalla v St. Michael’s Hospital 2016 ONSC 1513 (CanLII) at para. 52, Justice Wilson stated that the fairness inquiry involves whether on the motion to approve the settlement, the evidence establishes that the required level of factual, procedural and legal disclosure was made at the time the agreement was signed. I am not satisfied that these requirements were met.

Comments are closed.

Lawyer Jeremy Diamond appeals professional misconduct reprimand

Jeremy Diamond, the high profile personal injury lawyer and face of Diamond & Diamond law firm, is appealing a decision by Ontario’s legal regulator to reprimand him for engaging in professional misconduct.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/20/lawyer-jeremy-diamond-appeals-professional-misconduct-reprimand.html

Comments are closed.

Don’t cut lawyers out of accident benefits system

Removing lawyers from the accident benefits system would be bad for injured victims, says Ottawa personal injury lawyer Najma Rashid.

In his recent report on the state of the auto insurance in Ontario, David Marshall, the former CEO of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, called the proliferation of lawyers in the accident benefits system a sign of its failure and said his ideal version would have virtually no room for them.

http://www.advocatedaily.com/najma-rashid-dont-cut-lawyers-out-of-accident-benefits-system.html

Comments are closed.

Wave of anti-SLAPP rulings to come

Dunphy issued a ruling last fall in a case where a doctor who was often an expert witness filed a lawsuit against the then-president elect of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association for postings she made about his credibility on an association listserv.
The Superior Court judge in Platnick v. Bent dismissed the libel action filed by the doctor and also a Charter challenge to the legislation (his ruling is one of the cases before the Court of Appeal this summer).
The independence of experts in legal proceedings is a matter of significant public importance, stated Dunphy. He rejected the doctor’s argument that whether an expression is in the public interest should require a “clear and convincing” standard of proof to be met.

Comments are closed.

Access to Justice to be enhanced with the delivery of legal services through civil society organizations

Convocation approved, in principle, a policy to permit lawyers and paralegals to provide legal services through civil society organizations (CSOs), such as charities and not-for-profit organizations.

http://www.lawsocietygazette.ca/news/access-to-justice-to-be-enhanced/

Comments are closed.