Latest News - Adair Morse LLP

LATEST NEWS - OVERVIEW - Authoritative Voice in the Legal Community

Latest News

June 2008 Jerome Morse and Agape Lim are the Adair Morse LLP lawyers who represent the plaintiffs in an intended class action initiated on June 12, 2008. The proposed representative plaintiffs, Fairview Donut Inc. and Brule Foods Ltd., are franchisees of Tim Hortons in Ontario. They seek compensation with respect to business carried on under license agreements with The TDL Group Corp.s predecessors because they were required to convert their Tim Hortons stores to the Always Fresh frozen product system at considerable unrecovered capital costs and have also sustained lost profits due to the increased costs of production of donuts utilizing the Always Fresh frozen product system and because they were required to sell lunch menu items resulting in unreasonably low margins. For further information, contact Agape Lim at alim@adairmorse.com. To read a copy of the Statement of Claim, please click here.
June 2008 Jerome Morse and Lori Stoltz are the Adair Morse LLP team that is co-counsel with Fancy Barristers P.C. who represent the plaintiffs in an intended class action initiated on June 9, 2008. In this action, Peter Dennis and his wife, Zubin Noble, have put themselves forward as representative plaintiffs to seek compensation for all compulsive gamblers in Ontario and the United States who signed self-exclusion agreements with the OLGC from December 1, 1999 to February 10, 2005 to be denied access to gambling venues in Ontario but were nonetheless allowed access to gamble at these venues where they sustained significant losses now sought to be recovered. For further information, see the website that pertains to the proposed class action: www.problemgamblerslawyer.com.
May 2008 McNeil v. Brewers Retail Inc. et al., [2008] O.J. No. 1990 (C.A) Jerome Morse and Erica Toews of Adair Morse LLP and Kirk Stevens of Lerners LLP recently successfully represented Doug and Terry McNeil and the Court of Appeal, where the court upheld a jury verdict against Brewers Retail Inc., requiring payment for damages and costs of approximately $2,350,000.00. Brewers Retail Inc. maliciously prosecuted Douglas McNeil for a workplace theft they knew he did not commit when it supplied the police with apparently incriminating surveillance videotapes and summaries of such videotapes while failing to reveal the evidence it knew exonerated him. This judgment represents the largest reported damages award for a claim for malicious prosecution. Brewers Retail Inc. appealed both liability and the quantum of damages to the Ontario Court of Appeal, and also mounted arguments based upon lack of jurisdiction and res judicata. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds in reasons released May 22, 2008, reported at [2008] O.J. No. 1990 (C.A.). The Court of Appeal found there was no reason to interfere with the jury's damages award, noting in particular that the awards for aggravated damages and punitive damages "reflect[ed] the jury's sense of outrage at BRI's conduct and the enormity of the harm it concluded McNeil had suffered." The court stated at paragraph 65: By its verdict, it is apparent that the jury viewed BRI as a Calculating and insensitive company that was prepared, for its own purposes,to see an innocent man convicted of a crime he did not commit. As counsel for the respondents points out, the duplicity and deception practiced by BRI was not limited to a one-time act of folly that occasioned limited harm; rather, BRI carried on the charade for the better part of thirteen years. Notably, as late as 1995, BRI continued its duplicity at the arbitration hearing and in the process, robbed McNeil of his reputation, his employment, his dignity and his self-respect. Shocked and devastated by his arrest, proclaimed publicly as a common thief, terminated from his employment, forced to go on unemployment insurance, forced to sell the family home and move to an apartment, forced to ensure anguish, stress and uncertainty of a thirteen-year ordeal - these are but some of the consequences McNeil was exposed to by reason of BRI's callous and malicious conduct. Doug McNeil maintained from the moment he was falsely charged and throughout his 13-year battle that he was innocent and falsely accused, unfairly tried and convicted of a theft he did not commit and vowed he would obtain justice against Brewers Retail. His courageous battle to prove his accuser knew he was innocent of these malicious charges and the bring Brwers Retail to justice has concluded.
April 2008 Geoff Adair was recently presented with the Award of Excellence in Insurance Litigation by the Insurance Law Section of the Ontario Bar Association at their Annual dinner on April 23, 2008.
Upcoming Events April 19, 2008 Jerome Morse will be presenting "Modern Litigation: for the Ontario Bar Association in Ajax, ON.
April 3, 2008 Geoffrey D. E. Adair, Q.C. delivered a lecture on "Legal Principles Governing Appellate Intervention" at the Annual Law Society of Upper Canada's special lecture series. A published copy of the speech will be available from the LSUC at a later date.
April 2008 Jerome Morse recently spoke at the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association CLE in Marco Island. Over the period April 1 - 3rd, Jerome presented "Final Reports: What An Expert Needs to Know"; "Shortening the Process II"; and "Damages Assessment: The Times They Are A Changing".
February 2008 Giroux ats Hampel Greg Abogado won a defence jury verdict in North Bay. The action arose from a pedestrian accident involving a nine year old girl in 1983. The claim was not issued until after the plaintiff reached the age of majority. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the accident, she sustained a deteriorating low back condition which, according to her theory of the case, will result in her having to work part time and eventually withdraw from the workplace in her fifties. The trial proceeded on the issues of liability and damages. There was also a significant causation issue with respect to the low back injury in view of the lack of "documented" low back complaints for 6 1/2 years. The reverse onus provision under the Highway Traffic Act was engaged since the accident involved a pedestrian. After a two week trial, the jury was satisfied on the evidence that the defendant driver did not cause or contribute to the accident and proceeded to dismiss the claim. The liability finding was significant in view of the jury's assessment of damages at $910,000.00 exclusive of interests.
February 21, 2008 Geoffrey D.E. Adair, Q.C. and Thomas J. McEwen spoke at the "Winning Personal Injury Cases" conference sponsored by The Canadian Institute.
February 06, 2008 Michael Burgar presented a paper on "Insurance Policies and Assessing Coverage - The Latest on "Use and Operation of an Automobile" on February 6, 2008 as part of the Osgoode Law School Professional Development CLE, Managing and Litigating Motor Vehicle Accident Claims.
January 2008 Adair Morse Lawyers Named in 2008 Legal Lexpert Directory Geoffrey Adair, Q.C., Jerome Morse, and Thomas McEwen have been recognized in the 2008 Legal Lexpert Directory, which identifies leading lawyers across Canada as selected by their peers.
December 2007 As profiled in the December 2007 issue of Privacy Journal, a leading publication on the right to privacy, Jerome R. Morse and Agape Lim successfully invoked copyright infringement to force websites around the world to remove photographs of Toronto Maple Leafs hockey player, Jiri Tlusty.
December 2007 Kramarz v. KMH Cardiology & Diagnostic Centres Godoy v. 475920 Ontario Ltd. Robert Ben and Michael Burgar have both recently won dismissal orders for their clients because of Trustee Act limitation period issues. In Kramarz v. KMH Cardiology, [2007] O.J. No. 3258 (S.C.), the claim was issued more than two years after the death of the principal plaintiff whose family alleged she died because of medical negligence related to a heart stress test. Godoy v. 475920 Ontario Ltd., [2007] O.J. No. 3522 (S.C.) was a claim for negligence against an apartment building and property manager where the family of a murdered tenant sued for damages because of an alleged failure to warn and maintain proper security in the building. In both cases, the court found that the limitation period contained in section 38(3) of the Trustee Act expired two years after the date of death. It made no difference whether the plaintiffs knew of their right to sue. The special rules that sometimes lengthen limitation periods because of discoverability, or because the plaintiff has not reached the age of majority, do not apply to the Trustee Act limitation period. KMH included a review of the transition provisions contained in the Limitations Act 2002 and concluded the Trustee Act limitation period is not affected by the new limitations legislation. These court decisions reinforce how important it is to consider the Trustee Act limitation period in any action where any party to the action (any plaintiff or defendant)is deceased. The two-year limitation runs from the date of the death and will govern the claim regardless of whether the death has anything to do with the claim, or is even known by the plaintiffs who intend to sue. The Godoy decision is under appeal. KMH will not be appealed.
December, 2007 Tom McEwen was a guest speaker at the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association Fall Conference. Tom's presentation was on "The Use and Abuse of Objections During Jury Closing Arguments".
December 2007 Dmytrenko v. Vandenbor Michael Burgar won a summary judgment motion on behalf of ING Insurance Company of Canada. A third party claim for insurance coverage was in dispute. The issue was whether the "business use" exclusion in a homeowners policy applied to bar coverage of a litigation claim. The claims against the insured arose from her work in the home as a child care services worker. It was alleged that the child care worker failed to properly supervise a child who was injured as a result. Justice MacKenzie agreed with Mr. Burgar's submissions on behalf of ING that the "no business use" exclusion applied. There was no coverage. The claims against ING were dismissed. This decision reinforces that homeowners should make sure their insurance coverage is in order before undertaking any commercial or business activity in the home, which may give rise to new claims risks not covered under a standard homeowners policy.
October 2007 Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Vytlingam On October 19, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed an appeal argued by Geoffrey D.E. Adair on behalf of the Citadel General Assurance Co. Michael Vytlingam, an Ontario resident, had been driving along an interstate highway in North Carolina when his vehicle was struck by a large boulder which had been dropped from an overpass. The persons responsible for dropping the boulder were inadequately insured, and the Vytlingams made a claim pursuant to the Family Protection Endorsement contained in their own policy of insurance with the Citadel. At issue was whether the injuries suffered by Michael Vytlingam were caused by an inadequately insured motorist, and whether the injuries arose directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile. In a unanimous decision, the Court stated that insurance policies must be interpreted in a way that gives effect to the reasonable expectations of both insured and insurer and that for coverage to exist, there must be an unbroken chain of causation linking the conduct of the motorist as a motorist to the injuries in respect of which the claim is made. The Court also stated that to suggest that any time a car is used to transport people to the scene of a tort or a crime is sufficient to engage inadequately insured motorist coverage stretches the intended coverage until it snaps. The Court held that the rock throwing was an independent act which broke the chain of causation and that, accordingly, the Citadel was not liable to the Vytlingams.
September 2007 David v. Parkway Hotels On September 26, 2007, Michael Burgar won a defence jury verdict. The plaintiff was struck on the back of his head by a piece of wet ceiling tile while he sat at a table at an off-track betting establishment. Responsibility for the tile was admitted. The trial proceeded as an assessment of damages. The plaintiff's case included testimony from Dr. Donna Ouchterlony. The defence relied on Dr. Lawrence Freedman. It was alleged that the plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and, as a result, lost his trucking business and was effectively unemployable. Counsel for the plaintiff argued the jury should award damages in the amount of $850,000 plus interest and costs. The jury determined that the incident did not cause the plaintiff to sustain any injury on a reasonable balance of probabilities. The claim was dismissed with costs if demanded.
August 2007 Adair Morse's "Best Lawyers in Canada" We are very proud of 3 of our partners who have been selected by their peers to be included in the upcoming "Best Lawyers in Canada" 2008 directory. Geoffrey Adair - Insurance Law - Legal Malpractice Law - Personal Injury Litigation - Product Liability Jerome Morse - Personal Injury Litigation Tom McEwen - Personal Injury Litigation The Best Lawyers in Canada is related to "The Best Lawyers in America", a publication founded in the United States more than 25 years ago. As with "The Best Lawyers in America", lawyers listed in the Canadian edition were chosen for inclusion based solely on the votes of their peers. Listings could not be bought, and no purchase was required to be included making Best Lawyers a reliable, unbiased source for lawyer ratings.
June 2007 The Canadian Institute's Litigating Insurance Coverage Disputes Conference Michael Burgar is on a panel entitled, "Successfully Avoiding, Managing and Resolving Conflicts of Interest in Insurance Coverage Disputes", at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, June 19, 2:15 to 3:15.
May 2007 Friedrich v. Northumberland Hospital et al. Jerome Morse was senior counsel for the plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action in Friedrich v Northumberland Hospital et al. On April 16, 2007, Justice Shaughnessy granted judgment for the plaintiffs that pays the minor Plaintiff, Rebecca Friedrich, tax free periodic payments totalling $211,380 annually indexed at 2% per year for life plus lump sum damages of $1,887,000. The total lump sum damages and costs payable to all plaintiffs, in addition to the tax free periodic payments to Rebecca, was $ 4,850,000.
April 2007 Adair Morse Lawyers named to Best Lawyers list for Personal Injury. Geoffrey Adair and Jerome Morse have been recognized amongst the national leaders in the profession in the area of Personal Injury by the National Post -Best Lawyers in Canada. The National Post Best Lawyers in Canada is a bi-weekly publication highlighting the countrys top-rated lawyers in specific practice areas. The feature, established in October 2006, is a partnership between the National Posts Legal Post and the US publication Best Lawyers.
April 2007 Templeman v. McIntyre et al. Thomas McEwen successfully represented Tyler Templeman and his family with respect to a catastrophic brain injury sustained by Mr. Templeman in a motor vehicle accident. A multi-million dollar Judgment was obtained in March, 2007 in Orangeville, Ontario on behalf of Mr. Templeman and his family.
February 2007 Daly v. ING Halifax Insurance Co. Thomas McEwen successfully represented the ING Insurance Company of Canada in the Ontario Court of Appeal with respect to a significant statutory accident benefits issue. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal brought by Mr. McEwen on behalf of ING and held that the hourly rates set out in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and the Form 1 could not be disputed by an insured person. This decision was of significant importance to the insurance industry since, if the plaintiffs position was accepted, commercial hourly rates could have been used in pursuing attendant care benefits which would have greatly increased insurers exposure to such claims.


Site Map \| Privacy Policy	Copyright © 2006 Adair Morse LLP