Articles Posted in Legal News

Published on:

Depending on who you ask, Uber is either a fantastic service; or spells the death to hard working taxi drivers. Today, it was announced that the City of Toronto passed legislation which will regulate Uber and other private ride sharing services such that they can operate in the Toronto without further political controversy (we hope).

In case you’ve never heard of Uber before, it’s essentially a taxi dispatch service; only taxi drivers don’t necessarily make the pick ups. The pick ups can be done by every day motorists trying to make an extra buck. Sounds simple enough. The controversy lies in that the taxi regime in the City of Toronto is complex, and heavily taxed/regulated.

In order to operate a taxi, you need to have a special taxi license. These licenses are very expensive, and aren’t just handed out loosely by the City. There are a limited number of taxi licenses around. In addition, licensed taxis have to follow other regulations like how much they can charge per kilometre, what the set base fare charge is, insurance regulations, driver safety regulations, camera regulations etc.

UberX drivers didn’t have to follow any of that red tape. All they needed to do was download the app, and let Uber dispatch them to their next customer for a pick up so they could earn money. It was that easy, and that convenient. The reality was that it was and remains fantastic for consumers. But it undercut hard working taxi drivers who were just trying to earn a living and provide for their families. Fewer fares. Increased competition. Uneven playing field. It was a hard fight and became difficult to compete with effectively cheaper, more convenient and arguably faster and more pleasant Uber service drivers.

Continue reading →

Published on:

99% of personal injury cases in Ontario settle without ever going to trial; or without ever seeing the inside of a Courtroom for that matter.

The same cannot be said for criminal cases in Ontario. The government keeps stats on the percentage of criminal cases which go to trial. These stats are displayed on the Ontario Court of Justice website, and vary from month to month, depending on the offense.

There are a lot of lessons which can be learned when a high profile case such as the Ghomeshi case goes to trial. What happened in that downtown Toronto courtroom, isn’t dis-similar to what happens in other courtrooms across the Ontario. The primary difference is the amount of media attention which the Ghomeshi case garnered, and continues to attract.

What the personal injury lawyers at our office found so amazing, was the analysis and evidentiary principals applied in the highest profile sexual assault case we can think of; are VERY similar to the analysis and evidentiary principals which are applied in your run of the mill car accident, slip and fall, or long term disability case.

Our lawyers were also amazed at how many people chimed in on the findings of the decision of the Honourable Justice Horkins, without actually having read the transcripts from trial, read the Judge’s decision, or without having attended at Court in person to listen to the evidence presented.

Very quickly, if you haven’t read the decision from the Ghomeshi case, we urge you to do so. It will be a primer to how our legal system works and how our legal system weighs evidence. A link to the Ghomeshi decision can be found here.  Evidence is the building block to any case. Without evidence, our legal system doesn’t work.

Continue reading →

Published on:

This Holiday break, my family didn’t go away on a nice vacation. We stayed in town. Our offices were open, and I worked. The cities I visited (Windsor, London, Leamington, Toronto, Peterborough) were all very quiet.  It seemed like everyone was away somewhere else. The busiest place I saw was Masonville Mall and the Cineplex at Masonville in London, ON. Both were jam packed at really odd hours which I found rather strange; but that’s a topic for a different day.

A few hot shot Bay Street type lawyers I know recommended that I listen to the Pod Cast “Serial“. They knew I did considerable driving to meet with clients and listening to the Serial Podcast would be a great way to make the time pass. I downloaded Season #1 of Serial and binge listened. What a fascinating (but troubling) series of events. If you haven’t yet listened to it, I highly recommend you get in to it. The production quality and research that went in to the Podcast is nothing short of exceptional. The producers are well deserving of all of the accolades they have received. They ought to start practicing law!

Having got hooked on Serial, I proceeded to get hooked on the recent documentary “Making a Murderer” on Netflix. The documentary, filmed over 10 years or so tells the story of Steven Avery and his nephew Bobby Dassey, who were accused and later convicted of murder along with other charges.

The documentary pokes large holes in the case of the prosecution and advances the theory that the police may have framed Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey in order to secure the conviction.

Continue reading →

Published on:

The balance between access to justice vs. the goals of expediency, affordability and proportionality of the civil justice system were weighed in the case of Anjum et. al. v. Doe et. al. Here, it was ruled that a defendant insurer would be permitted to bring a 3 day summary judgment motion requiring viva voce evidence from a catastrophically injured Plaintiff along with evidence from competing experts on both sides.

The practical effect, although expressly denied in the decision, is that the parties are having an expensive and time consuming three day mini trial on liability, without a jury.

The Plaintiff Anjum was involved in an alleged hit and run car accident which caused catastrophic injuries. Anjum could not identify the vehicle that hit him, so he sued his own insurer, State Farm under the unidentified motorist coverage under his policy.

State Farm denied that there was any evidence indicating involvement from another vehicle and brought a summary judgment motion along these lines.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Earlier this week, the Kathleen Wynne Ontario Provincial government announced unilateral cuts to all of its fees which it pays to doctors. The cuts around around 2.65% across the board for services. Ontario doctors have been without a proper contract with the Government since March 31, 2014. Contract negotiations have broken down such that the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) refuses to accept the provinces proposals; and the province refuses to give in to the OMA’s demands.

In addition to the 2.65% cut to all OHIP plan fees, the province will eliminate funding to doctors to take continuing medical education courses; will reduce the fees for walk-in visits by $1.70 to bring it in line with with the fee for regular visits to a family doctor; eliminate the premium for doctors to accept new patients who are healthy; and eliminate the number of family doctors in well-serviced areas who can join family health teams where doctors are paid by the number of patients they enroll (not fee for service).

10% of Ontario Provincial budget is devoted towards healthcare. Of that 10%; 25% is devoted towards paying doctors. I would be ok if that budget were higher on both ends, but that’s me. Now you know where I stand.

Are doctors happy with these unilateral terms imposed by the government? I haven’t spoken with a single doctor OR patient who has welcomed these changes.

Will doctors strike? No. But the reprecussions will be felt across the provincial health care system. More on that later.

How much does the Province predict they will save by these cuts and changes? Another good question. In fact, that question was so good, that Minister of Health, Dr. Eric Hoskins dodged the question when it was asked to him.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Uber is a really cool service. Using an App, you can get essentially get a taxi fare for a fraction of the price, with less wait time as well. The App tells you exactly what distance you’ve traveled, and how much the fare cost. The fare cost is then debited directly from your credit card to pay the driver. You can chose to tip the driver if you wish. You can also leave comments or ratings about that Uber experience and that particular driver. If one driver or vehicle has too many negative comments, then the driver won’t be allowed to use to service to provide others with rides. I must admit that all of the lawyers and staff here at Goldfinger Law love Uber and the service which it provides.

For your ordinary person looking to make a few extra dollars on the side driving people around; Uber is a blessing. Especially for those people who don’t have enough money to afford an expensive taxi license.

For those taxi drivers who have toiled with the long hard house and the red tape with respect to taxi licensing, Uber is undercutting their business. They aren’t following the same rules which apply to your ordinary taxi driver.

City Hall in Toronto has yet to sort out the details of how Uber will work on a go forward basis. Some cities have essentially regulated Uber and other ride sharing services. In Vancouver, you can’t use a ride sharing service like Uber for a fare which costs under $75. This has essentially killed Uber’s business out there where the fares tend to be short and fast ones.

Continue reading →

Published on:

This Civic Holiday was a time to relax, enjoy time spent with the family, along with some nice weather….For most.

For insurers and the Ontario Government, it was a time to reign in some new changes to the Insurance Act which were swept under the rug. Unbeknownst to Ontario drivers, the value of the pain and suffering and their injuries following a serious car accident claim have been diminished yet again at the behest of large, deep pocketed insurance companies.

So; what are these changes of which I speak?

Many of you may not know this, but there is a deductible for pain and suffering claims (tort) following a car accident.

Back in the 1970’s there was no such deductible. This meant that you could sue, and recover compensation at law for large injuries and for smaller ones. If the accident wasn’t your fault, and you got injured, chances are you would be able to recover some form of compensation for your pain and suffering.

After the introduction of no fault insurance in Ontario, a deductible and a threshold were both introduced in order to limit the recovery of accident victims in the guise of saving insurers money on claims. The hope was that fewer claims would be advanced, thereby reducing the expenses for insurers. Those savings were supposed to be passed along to the consumer in the form of lower car insurance rates. That deductible has soared from $10,000; to $15,000; to $30,000.

So what’s the significance of the August 1, 2015 date?

Continue reading →

Published on:

First and foremost, I want to send special recognition my friend David Siegel, who told me last night that he stopped following his mother, sister, father, the best man at his wedding, and his Grade 8 Karate teacher on Twitter. BUT, he continues to follow @GoldfingerLaw on Twitter. David told me that he can’t get enough of the Toronto Injury Lawyer Blog, along with the daily insight and tidbits from our law firm’s Twitter Feed. You can’t follow David on Twitter, but you can follow his dog, @RockySeigel for the latest in the life of his pooch.

On to some law talk? Sure. Why not.

My law firm gets calls from kind people all over Ontario who have been hurt or injured in an accident; or who have nowhere to turn after they’ve had their long term disability claims denied.

There are a lot of plaintiff personal injury law firms out there in Ontario. Goldfinger Injury Lawyers doesn’t control 100% of the market. Sometimes (more often than I can to admit) we get calls from upset clients of other law firms; or accident victims who have contacted other law firms, prior to calling our office.

Some of the practices I’ve heard from these clients from other law firms, whether true or not, are quite disturbing. I can relate to the anger and frustration of those who contact my office after being treated they way they’ve suggested. The tears say it all. There are no words to describe the upset feelings and disappointment these people have to share. Continue reading →

Published on:

The Law Society of Upper Canada is the regulatory body which governs lawyers in Ontario. They are considering some changes with respect to how lawyers do business, and administer services throughout the province.

Currently, lawyers can provide legal services to the PUBLIC in a wide variety or ways:

  • A sole practitioner: a lawyer operating alone or with other non lawyer employees (lawyer owned personally)
  • A Professional Corporation: a lawyer operating a law firm through that lawyers professional corporation (lawyer owned through the PC)
  • A Limited Liability Partnership (LLP): Lawyers in partnership running a law firm (lawyer owned)
  • A Limited Partnership (LP): A lawyer partnering with another lawyer or a non lawyer to form a parnership (lawyer owned)
  • A Multi-Disciplinary Practice (MDP): A lawyer partnering with another business professional to provide a variety of legal and non-legal services (lawyer owned with others)

Those are the basic models of business associations for Ontario Law Firms. The LSUC is considering allowing non-lawyer ownership of law firms in the form of Alternative Business Structures.

This would allow non-lawyer investment and ownership of law firms. The LSUC is considering whether or not to allow non-lawyers minority ownership or whether or not there should be unlimited restrictions on who can own the law firm.

Australia and the United Kingdom have permitted UNRESTRICTED ownership  by non-lawyers of law firms. Spain, Italy, Denmark and Singapore allow minority non-lawyer ownership.

The question is, what should Ontario do; and how will it impact the legal landscape?

Continue reading →

Published on:

This week the Ontario Court of Appeal released a much awaited decision in the case of Westerhof v. Gee Estate. The appeal raised the question of whether or not the Rules of Civil Procedure allowed only experts engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide opinion evidence for a case; OR whether the Rules ought to be construed more broadly such as allowing ALL witnesses with special knowledge to provide opinion evidence. This later group is much broader broader and could include treating doctors (family doctors) who have not been formally retained by either party to the litigation to provide their opinion evidence.

In order to better understand this case, it’s important to understand what happened in 2010. That year, the Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to create Rule 53.03 which set out requirements, and also set out that an expert must sign a specific form called an Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty Form (Form #53). Continue reading →

Contact Information