Tara is an experienced litigator and has been practicing in Ottawa since her call to the bar in 2005. She represents both insurers and individuals with a focus on litigation including motor vehicle liability, slip-and-falls, sexual assaults, professional negligence, brain injuries, and product liability.
She has a particular specialization in Accident Benefits ranging from disputes over treatment plans to catastrophic impairments with complex causation questions.
She has regularly appeared before the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Court of Appeal, and License Appeal Tribunal of Ontario.
Tara enjoys the challenge of applying the law to individual circumstances and recognizes the important role that human factors may play in a case.
In her spare time, Tara enjoys spending time with her family and getting into the great outdoors.
Tara Lemke and Alex Herle represented the Defendant in a 6 week personal injury jury trial
where the Defendant was successful in having the Plaintiffsʼ expert on liability excluded.
While damages were ultimately awarded to the seriously injured Plaintiff, there were reduced
significantly below those being sought and were well below the Plaintiffsʼ pre-trial Rule 49
offer to settle. The Defendants were successful in having the presumptive PJI rate lowered
from 5% to 1.3% on non-pecuniary damages and past pecuniary damages at 0.8%, but this
decision was later overturned at the C.A.
The respondent successfully defended this matter resulting in a finding that the applicant was
not CAT and the treatment plan was not reasonable or necessary.
Following a nearly 4-week jury trial, lead lawyers Tara Lemke and Kelly Hart, assisted by
Gabriella Gader, were successful in securing a jury award of $1,040,000.00 for their personal
injury plaintiI client in a motor vehicle accident case aJer years of hard-fought litigation. As
the net award was in excess of the Defendants’ oIer to settle, the Defendants were
additionally required to pay a significant six figure costs award to the PlaintiI.
This was a preliminary issue hearing at the LAT wherein the insurer was successful in striking
her LAT application as the applicant had entered into a valid settlement agreement.
This was an urgent motion brought to the Divisional Court in an attempt to stay an impending
LAT hearing to allow for a judicial review to take place. The LAT had denied the respondent’s
adjournment request. Despite the importance of procedural fairness and the maintenance of
the appearance of fairness, the stay was not granted as counsel needs to be available for
existing dates before agreeing to act on a matter.
Tara successfully defended this appeal from a Small Claims Court Judgment to the Divisional Court. Central to the Appeal was the question of whether or not Deputy Justice Fortier had correctly applied the law as it related to unjust enrichment and whether or not the defence of change of position applied.
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.
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.
Tara Lemke successfully brought a summary judgment motion on behalf of the funeral home to strike the Plaintiff’s claim in its entirety. This case arose from the tragic demise of the Plaintiff’s son in a car crash and a dispute between the Plaintiff and his estranged former spouse over how the deceased’s remains were to be dealt with. The Plaintiff claimed against the funeral home for breach of contract, deceit and intentional infliction of mental distress. Justice Gomery concluded that the evidence presented did not support the causes of action being alleged and granted the motions for summary judgment brought on behalf of each of the Defendants.
Tara successfully defended this LAT dispute relating to various treatment plans and post-104 income replacement benefits. The Adjudicator accepted her argument that the Applicant’s alleged psychological difficulties were caused by other life stressors and not the sequellae from the accident. While the Applicant’s back pain was found to be causally related to the accident, it was not sufficient to lead to a complete inability within the meaning of the post-104 IRB test.
The Advocates’ Society has just announced that Eric R. Williams of Williams Litigation Lawyers LLP, is the 2024 recipient of The John P. Nelligan Award for Excellence in Advocacy. The award is presented to an advocate from Ottawa and the surrounding region who exemplifies excellence in advocacy. The award will be