Legal News

Published on: January 6, 2016

Personal Injury Law and Making A Murderer: Similarities and Differences

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: October 7, 2015

When a Summary Judgment Motion became a full blown 3 day mini trial: Anjum et. al., v. Doe. et. al.: A case study

By Goldfinger Injury Lawyers

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: September 16, 2015

Ontario Government slashes fees for doctors posing serious concerns to accident victims

By Goldfinger Injury Lawyers

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: August 19, 2015

Uber and Car Insurance in Ontario: Clash of the Titans

By Goldfinger Injury Lawyers

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: August 5, 2015

New Changes to Deductibles for Car Accident Claims in Ontario effective August 1, 2015

By Goldfinger Injury Lawyers

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: May 27, 2015

One bad apple can spoil the whole lot of injury lawyers (Ontario)

By Goldfinger Injury Lawyers

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: April 16, 2015

Alternative Business Structures and the Legal Profession in Ontario

By Goldfinger Injury Lawyers

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: March 26, 2015

Westerhof v. Gee Estate: A legal analysis of introducing expert evidence at trial

By Goldfinger Injury Lawyers

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 →

Published on: February 11, 2015

Injury Law and the Legal Concept of “Causation”: When an accident and an injury aren’t enough

By Goldfinger Injury Lawyers

There are three elements to any personal injury case.

Element #1: Liability: How did the accident happen and who’s to blame? The concept of liability is straight forward in many cases. A drunk driver runs a stop sign resulting in catastrophic motor vehicle accident. Establishing liability against the drunk driver is easy to establish. The driver was drunk and on top of that, they ran a stop sign. The drunk driver is at fault of the car accident. Liability is established. Sometimes liability isn’t so clear and an engineer or another expert will need to be retained to look in to this issue. This expert will be able to tell us whether or not we have a case and whether or not we can place blame on another party of the event giving rise to the litigation.

Element #2: Damages/Injuries: What are the injuries from the car accident. Is it a simple bruise which goes away in a week, or are the injuries severe, like a brain injury along with multiple orthopedic injuries. Understanding this concept is somewhat straight forward as well for many accident victims because it’s easy to visualize and more tangible than other legal concepts. If Superman were involved in a car accident, chances are he wouldn’t have sustained any injuries or damages. Hence: he wouldn’t have much of a personal injury case if Superman weren’t injured. Sorry Superman.

Element #3: Causation: : There must be some form of connection between the Bad Guy Defendant’s conduct and the Accident Victim’s injuries. This term is sometimes called “remoteness of damage” or “proximate cause“. Either way, this third element is the most difficult for accident victims to understand.

Sometimes causation is easy to prove. Suzy broker her leg in a car accident. Suzy is seeking compensation for her broken leg from the car accident. Thomas slipped and fell and bumped his head. Thomas is seeking compensation for his head injury from the slip and fall accident.

But sometimes causation is not so simple/clear. Johnny was in a car accident and hurt his knee. Now Johnny complains of headaches, fatigue and shortness of breath. Alice was bit by a dog and sustained abrasions to her legs. Now Alice is deeply depressed and can’t sleep. Marvcus lived in a mouldy apartment building. Now Marvcus has a bad cough. Marvcus has since moved out of the apartment building but still has a bad cough and can’t sleep properly.

The focus of this edition of the Toronto Injury Blog Post will examine the concept of Causation, along with the pitfalls many of us encounter along the way. It’s dedicated to a fellow colleague of mine based out of Toronto who gave sage advice to me in my youth and was a mentor of sort in assisting me in getting in to law school, so where we go.
Continue reading →

Published on: January 19, 2015

Nice write up of Goldfinger Personal Injury Law

By Goldfinger Injury Lawyers

Below is a fantastic write up of Goldfinger Injury Lawyers which will be featured in the “Legal Elite” issue of London’s Business Magazine to be released in February 2015.

After several years working a reliable factory job, Ken didn’t know where to turn.

He was off work with a repetitive strain injury, initially identified as something akin to tennis elbow. Eventually, he learned that was a misdiagnosis. What he really had was spinal stenosis, a narrowing of the spinal canal that causes intense pain, numbness and weakness in the arms.

Continue reading →