Hamilton Slip and Fall Lawyers Answer The answer to this question is driven by factual circumstances. Did you child fall during the winter? Spring? Summer? Fall? If it was winter, perhaps the answer to your question is yes, the homeowners should have taken better care of their driveway if it was icy. In short, an occupier (if you want to know what an occupier is click here) owes a duty of care that is general to everyone visiting on his or her property. This duty of care is mandated by the Occupiers Liability Act. The Occupiers Liability Act is a
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →Please speak to our wrongful Dismissal Lawyers in Burlington or Wrongful Dismissal Lawyers in Milton if you have any Questions about your Severance or Termination Letter This is another wrongful dismissal case with a lot of interesting issues. The case of Olivares v. Canac Kitchens one of many reported wrongful dismissal cases against Canac Kitchens (There must be ten at this point…) since it shut the doors of its manufacturing department in 2008. The plaintiff, Mr. Olivares was terminated after 24 years of service with the Defendant Canac. He was paid 32 weeks as his basic termination pay and severance
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →Toronto Slip and Fall Lawyers serving, Toronto West, Oakville, Mississauga, Burlington, Milton and Hamilton In Ontario, unless you’re injured on government or municipal property, the law surrounding slip and falls is mandated by statute called the Occupiers’ Liability Act. For an injured person not involved in the law, the Occupiers’ Liability Act can be quite complicated. From a legal perspective establishing liability against the place where you fell is absolutely subject to this Act. So does it matter where you slipped and fell? You bet. It matters because the Occupiers Liability Act defines what an occupier is. For example section
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →In the case of Nicholas v. Bauers, the plaintiff Nicholas was involved in a car accident and suffered injuries. Her case went to trial and a jury returned a verdict on March 29, 2010. They awarded Mrs. Nicholas $55,000.00 for general damages (pain and suffering compensation) and $4,250.00 for lost income. They awarded Mr. Nicholas $20,000.00 for his Family Law Act claim. All of these awards were subject to a reduction of 15% from Ms. Nicholas’ contributory fault to the accident. At the end of the case the defence brought a usual motion to determine whether or not the plaintiff
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →Car Accident Compensation and the Insurance Threshold. This is another threshold case from 2009. For those of you that do not recall what the “threshold” is with respect to car accidents, please click here. In the case of Del Rio v. Laurence the plaintiff was involved in a car accident onOctober 5, 2001. At the conclusion of the trial the defendant brought a Motion for an order dismissing the action on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to establish that she sustained a permanent and serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function. Judge Gans noted that the burden
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →Car Accidents and Rotator Cuff Injuries A very large part of our practice involves helping victims that have been injured in car accidents. Very common and re-occurring injuries that I see as an injury lawyer involve injuries to the rotator cuff muscles. What is the rotator cuff? The rotator cuff is a group of four muscles that surround the shoulder joint. The muscles are called the infraspinatus, supraspinatus, subscapularis, and the teres minor. Each of the rotator cuff muscles insert at the scapula (the big shoulder bone) and has a tendon that attaches at the humerus (the big upper arm
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →Landlords are liable for injuries to tenants where there is a lack of maintenance. An interesting case came out of the Court of Appeal last year which dealt with injuries that a person sustained while visiting a residential rental property. In the case of Taylor v. Allen, the Plaintiff, Lorne Taylor, attended a party held by Bobby Allard and Joyce Allen at their residence which they rented from Joyce’s son Robert. Robert did not live at the property but rather owned it and was the landlord by law. He had constructed a fire pit in the backyard which had a
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →Conduct of Insurance Company causes Mental Distress to Policyholder. The Court of Appeal recently examined the issue of an insured person being mental distressed because their insurance company was not acting in good faith with their accident benefits. The Supreme Court of Canada told us a few years ago in the case of Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. Ltd. that an insurer owes a common law duty to act in good faith in all its dealings with an insured and has an additional duty not to inflict unnecessary mental distress – something which the Court ruled that Echelon Insurance unfortunately did
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →Employees that resign and then try to retract it – what to do? Have a read of Matt’s most recent monthly contribution to the popular HR site FirstReference.com http://blog.firstreference.com/2012/01/11/employees-that-wish-to-withdraw-resignations-what-to-do/
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →Car Accident Compensation and the Insurance Threshold. This is another threshold case from 2010. For those of you that do not recall what the “threshold” is with respect to car accidents, please click here. The case of Valdez v. Clarke is a 2010 case that went to trial in Hamilton. The Plaintiff Valdez was involved three separate car accidents. He was awarded $25,000 in general damages. Despite the award being under deductible counsel and Judge Milanetti agreed on threshold ruling. The plaintiff put forward evidence of being still employed at the time of trial, losing a cleaning business that he
TO FINISH READING THIS ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK HERE →