Jeremy represented Mr. Dudzicki who was a tenant at the Plaintiffs’ residence. A fire broke out at the Plaintiffs’ residence which was paid for by the Plaintiffs’ insurance company. The insurance company brought a subrogated claim against Mr. Dudzicki to try and recover its payout. Jeremy brought a motion to dismiss the claim against Mr. Dudzicki for want of jurisdiction, on the basis that the Landlord Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the issue and the limitation period had expired. Jeremy was successful in the motion and the claim was dismissed against Mr. Dudzicki.
Jeremy represented Mr. Lalonde in this case where the Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on Mr. Lalonde’s property. Jeremy successfully brought a motion on behalf of our client to dismiss the action against him. The Court dismissed the claim after finding that the Plaintiff’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and had no meaningful chance of success at trial.
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.
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.
Acting for the Defendant small business owner, Ms. Barber brought a Right to Sue Application which barred the Plaintiff from pursuing a personal injury lawsuit.
Ms. Barber successfully barred a multi-million-dollar personal injury lawsuit with a Right to Sue Application. The decision was upheld on both the reconsideration and Judicial Review.
After successfully defending Mr. Hillary at trial, the Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff argued that Mr. Hillary should be responsible for the $1.8M cost of remediating the contamination on the Plaintiff’s property. The Court of Appeal agreed with our position and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
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.
