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.
Kelly Hart successfully defended a store owner against allegations of assault, battery, and wrongful imprisonment in a three week trial. The jury found against the Plaintiff and the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Within the trial, Kelly successfully defended a motion in which the Plaintiff sought to exclude all of the Defendants’ surveillance evidence. Justice S. Corthorn ordered that the Defendants were entitled to use significant portions of the surveillance at trial.
Kelly Hart represented the Defendant succeeding both on a cross-motion and in dismissing the Plaintiff’s motion. The Plaintiff sought to use the evidence of his former solicitor alone in support of his motion to proceed with the action under a pseudonym. This affidavit was struck and the court found that even if the affidavit has remained, on the evidence presented, he would not have been able to properly consider the required factors for allowing a case to proceed with a party assuming a pseudonym.
