Articles Posted in Legal News

Published on:

By

Recently, contingency fee agreements in Ontario for personal injury cases have come under attack. Seeing this sort of news is very disappointing and disheartening. A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal on this issue was highlighted in the news. Here is a link to a quick article. I cannot comment on what the former lawyer did in that case, but it’s certainly does not appear to be good for the legal profession.

A contingency fee agreement is a fancy legal term for an agreement between an client (injured accident victim) and a lawyer/law firm whereby the law firm’s legal fees are based entirely on the success of the case. If the lawyer works many many years, and invests many many hours on a case, but the lawyer isn’t able to recover any money on the case, then the lawyer gets ZERO. But, if the lawyer is successful in winning/resolving the case for fair compensation, then the lawyer gets paid their legal fees based on a percentage of the recovery in the case. If there is no money at stake in a case, then a contingency fee cannot work. Contingency fee agreements don’t only exist in personal injury cases. Other lawyers in different practice areas use them as well.Contingency fees in the context of criminal cases are rare, if not unheard of. I have never heard of a criminal lawyer take a case on the basis that s/he will only get paid if s/he wins on behalf of their client. I suppose it can happen, but what that fee will be for winning would have to be worked out at the outset of the case.

In a contingency fee relationship, the client and the lawyer form a team. I like that. The more money the lawyer recovers on behalf of the client, the more money the lawyer can recover in legal fees. And vice versa, if the lawyer recovers ZERO, then the lawyer gets ZERO. This sort of arrangement works for a variety of reasons.

I would like to illustrate one of the biggest reasons by sharing a story with you.

When I was in University, I worked for Sears Canada. I worked in the hardware and paint departments. This was an odd fit, because I’m neither a handy person nor a painter. But, I must admit that I learned a lot; both about hardware and painting. The money I earned from Sears went towards my University education. I paid for school by working at Sears. For this reason alone, I appreciated that Sears kept me gainfully employed throughout my College years so that I could make ends meet.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Personal Injury lawyers across North America widely advertise that they provide “free consultations“. It’s a widely accepted industry standard. I don’t know any reputable personal injury law firms who don’t provide a free consultation, or free consultations thereafter. You may be hard pressed to find another area of the law where face to face consultations are provided for free. A lawyer’s commodity is their time. Lawyers don’t have any dry goods to sell you like bagels, I-Phones or shoes. All lawyers have is their time, and the work product from that time which generally manifests in the form of thoughtful and meticulously prepared letters, pleadings and other documents which clients have requested or need for their respective cases.

So, when a lawyer provides you with a free consultation, it’s important for that consultation not to be a waste of time. How can we make these consultations as productive as possible for everyone involved.

Generally, the lawyer will already have done his/her research on you, the client, BEFORE you step foot through the door. A quick Google Search, or search on Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter can tell us volumes. If the accident was a high profile accident that was covered on TV or in newspapers, then a quick internet search can give us a good starting point in terms of how the accident, where, and when the accident took place. It can also give the lawyer a starting point on the nature of the injuries, if these were reported accurately. Certainly, the client’s version of events will be more important than what’s been reported in the media as it’s not often accurate. But, it does give the lawyer a starting point.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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:

By

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 →

OTLA American Association for Justice Lexpert Ranked Lawyer
Contact Information
Toronto Office
167 Sheppard Ave W
Toronto, ON M2N 1M9
Phone: (416) 730-1777 Toll Free: (877) 730-1777 Fax: (416) 730-0955
London Meeting Office
341 Talbot St
London, ON N6A 2R5
Toll Free: (877) 730-1777
Peterborough Meeting Office
420 George St N #313
Peterborough, ON K9H 3R5
Toll Free: (877) 730-1777
Kitchener Meeting Office
290 King St E
Kitchener, ON N2G 2L3
Toll Free: (877) 730-1777
Owen Sound Meeting Office
1051 2nd Ave E
Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H8
Toll Free: (877) 730-1777

Past results are not indicative of future results.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Goldfinger Law
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design