Ryan Carson will be speaking at the Anglican Church of St-Bride in conjunction with Turner and Porter on Wednesday, November 2, 2011 from 7:30 p.m - 9:00 p.m and Thursday, November 3, 2011 from 1:00 p.m - 2:30 p.m.

Along with speakers Gordon MacGregor and Rev. Stephanie Douglas-Browman, Ryan will be providing important information about the duties and options of an executor/executrix and estate planning strategies that protect today & tomorrow.

Please download the attachment below for more information about the seminar.

Church-EducationSeminar-Green-13x8-AnglicanStBride.pdf (2.11 mb)

Burlington drunk driving accident lawyers | Burlington impaired driving causing death lawyers

Our Burlington, Oakville Mississauga and Milton personal injury law firm often deals with fatality accidents caused by impaired drivers.  We often see fatalities occur as a result of impaired drivers striking pedestrians or people riding their bikes.

Civil Actions for drunk driving accidents
Impaired drivers that cause accidents will most likely face both criminal charges and civil lawsuits for the damage they cause.  In Ontario, criminal penalties are very harsh with respect to drinking and driving convictions. In addition to criminal charges, those who were harmed as a result of the impaired driver’s actions causing damage to a loved one can also sue for their losses. This would be typically called a “wrongful death suit.”  This is what we would assist with as Burlington impaired driving lawyers. These lawsuit against drunk drivers are framed negligence actions. Drivers in Ontario have a duty of care to operate their vehicles safely.  They have a duty to keep other motorists and passengers safe from harm. Drinking and Driving will normally breach this duty and as a result – a driver could be held liable for his/her actions.

Third parties involved
Often times when people get behind the wheel of a car while impaired and kill someone – a third party could be involved such as the company or business that sold the booze to the drunk driver.  Taverns in Ontario also have a duty of care not to over serve a visibly intoxicated person.  For example, in the case of McIntyre v Grigg the Court of Appeal reviewed a verdict against a bar and the school the bar was located in. The Court of Appeal modified but upheld a punitive damage award against a defendant who was operating his motor vehicle after drinking excessively.  The plaintiff suffered disastrous injuries after she was run over by an impaired driver.  The Court of Appeal allowed punitive damages because it found that the defendants conduct was to be deliberate and intentional and that he drank excessively before operating his motor vehicle.  In addition, the bar was held to be 30% percent liable the combination of the Defendant’s blood alcohol level and expert testimony which suggested that the Defendant was showing visible signs of impairment. There also evidence that the “Smart Serve” protocols were not followed.

The compensation
The loss of a loved one in Ontario is characterized case as loss of cared guidance and companionship.  The awards are decided based on what the courts feel is adequate and reasonable.  There is also a dependency loss which can be claimed which is the loss that is experienced by the survivors as a result of the loss of the deceased contribution to the family income over their lives.  This was set in a case of Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Limited.  The judge in that case noted that we must look at “...what sort of career would the accident victim had. What were his prospects and potential prior to the accident.  It is not loss of earnings but loss of earning capacity of which compensation must be made.” We must project the future income of the deceased and establish various assumptions.  If the deceased was a young person we must try our best to establish a future career path and income stream that would have flown from it.  A vocational expert is often used as well as an economist. 

We must look at the productivity gains of certain occupations given that wages are rising and will continue to rise in excess of mere predictable inflation.  The best gage for a future economic loss is to look at the deceased history of employment.  It is easier for a jury to base an award if there is stable past economic history.  Contingencies are calculated in such as, divorce, reduced life expectancy and remarriage.  There also maybe a pecuniary loss of a minor in relation to his or her dependency on a lost parent.  If that minor was in receipt of child support then the Child Support Guidelines is a tool that we must use to quantify the child’s dependency loss.  If the deceased was divorced than a remarriage contingency is generally applied to both, loss of dependency and loss of housekeeping.  This however, is a statistical argument which often falls in the deceased spouse’s favor.  The possibility, based on Stats Canada, of remarriage after a spouse dies is currently only in the range of 16 percent.  Most female widows that have been married for ten years or more do not re-marry, similarly older widows over 40 are less likely to remarry. Everything must be examined, studied and argued.

There may also be a pecuniary loss for the survivor.  This is also explored in Family Law Act claims.  An alternate approach that we can take is a loss of economic opportunity.  In this we address the pecuniary losses of a surviving family member. It is extremely difficult but not impossible to calculate assumptions of the surviving spouses future wage loss.  The surviving spouse often has a difficult economic outlook that suffers either to increase family responsibilities or having their earning potential impacted in some other way.

In fatality claims we can also claim for household and child care services.  Under the setting evidence asked that the surviving spouse’s time and interaction with the family will be quit relevant as well as obtaining some form of analysis of what the deceased contribution of the household was over and above the obvious pecuniary aspects.

Also - and very important - is that if the deceased was to survive some time after an initial accident or injury, the estate can make its own individual claim under the Trustee Act.

If you require anymore information with respect to a wrongful death or fatality claim, please do not hesitate to contact Matt Lalande at matt.lalande@haber-lawyer.com or by calling 905-639-8894. We are impaired driving accident lawyers that have been dealing with drinking and driving accidents for over 38 years.  We lawyers that serve clients in Toronto, Mississauge, Oakville, Milton, Burlington, Hamilton and Stoney Creek.

On January 6, 2010 a judgment was rendered concerning a plaintiff that was involved in 3 separate car accidents.  You can read the judgment here.  The plaintiff was awarded $25,000 for pain and.  The jury was asked to assess global damages (from all three accidents) and then apportion responsibility (decide who was at fault and for what percentage).  The plaintiff was not awarded any past and future wage loss.  

At the end of the trial a threshold motion was brought.  Our past articles explain that the threshold is a legal test set out by the Insurance Act.  It is a legal test in which, at the end of a personal injury motor vehicle accident trial, lawyers ask a judge whether the plaintiff suffered a permanent and serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.  This question is asked at the end of every jury trial.  If the judge decided that the plaintiff did not suffer from a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function, then the case is tossed.  

At trial, the plaintiff testified and called his wife, his daughter, his friend of 20 years, 2 family doctors, a psychologist, 2 neurologists and a physiatrist.  The balance of these physicians were treating physicians, and not expert physicians.  A few expert physiatrists were hired by plaintiff counsel to render an independent medical opinion.   The evidence of all of the medical witnesses was that Mr. Valdez had been left with chronic pain.  Mr. Valdez suffered soft tissue injuries to his neck, back, headaches as well as numbness and tingling sensations in his right thumb and fingers.  The neurologist spoke of nerve injuries in the right side and to a lesser extent to part of the left side of his neck.  A lot of attention was paid to objective signs (objective meaning not what the plaintiff says himself but rather x-rays and physical diagnosis).  

Judge Milanetti noted that she did not form a picture of a man with any ongoing chronic issues despite reference to a note in the family doctor’s file which indicated “chronic back pain”.  That being said, Judge Malanetti found him to be a credible individual. His doctors did not doubt him and they did not lack objectivity.  They came across as the professionals that they are.  She did in fact find that the plaintiff did suffer from a chronic pain syndrome as a result of these motor vehicle accidents. More importantly for this article is the plaintiff’s employment status.  Judge Malanetti noted that “the pieces of the puzzle I had greater difficulty with were the claims for lost wages, both past and future”. The jury was asked to compensate Mr. Valdez for past and future wage loss for the loss of the production supervisor’s job at his place of employment.  He had missed the first 6 months of his job, returning fulltime on modified duties, weeks before the third accident.  Upon his return he felt he was castigated by his peers and no one seemed sympathetic to his problems.  He was assigned newly established night shifts at work that were easier and he was the only supervisor.  The men on the floor helped him more frequently.  He maintained his work until he was laid off indefinitely in March 2005 and was provided with 13 weeks severance.  Judge Malanetti did not find the loss of his job presented as a result of the accidents.  He tried to find work in his field and he did obtain fulltime work as a long-haul truck driver which he maintained to date.

Judge Malanetti found that it was clear that he was able to find fulltime employment which he conceded was more physical in nature than the work he had done before his car accidents.  The problem was that a considerable amount of his time was spent driving in a truck, something that his family doctor did not think was a good choice for someone with a bad neck.  The pattern of consistent fulltime work may well mitigate against the threshold claim, but Judge Malanetti noted that it was clear to her that his quality of life had been significantly affected by his injuries.  He continued to work but at the end of the day he was able to do less.  His family corroborated this evidence and as a result of his injuries he did have difficulties with his activities of daily living.   In addition, Mr. Valdez and his wife were also operating a part-time cleaning company, acting as subcontractors that clean the courthouse and the MTO offices for 4 hours per day from Monday to Friday.  After the accidents Mrs. Valdez simply could not keep up with business on her own.  Judge Malanetti detailed Sections 4 through 4.3 of the Ontario Regulation 381/08 (Bill 98) which defined what a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function was in precise terms.  She noted that Mr. Valdez managed to return to his job but had lost the operation of his cleaning business he and his wife started up.  This was a business that he had hoped to grow.

As a result of this it was clear to her that part of Mr. Valdez’s usual and regular employment at the time of the accident was substantially interfered with as a result of his accident related injuries.  She accepted that while he has managed to maintain his fulltime employment, his activities of daily living and certainly his enjoyment of life had also been severely compromised.  He had given up cooking, photography, and his social life was seriously affected.  He used to be active in sports with his son, he no longer did grocery shopping with his wife and he became irritable, impatient and short tempered - that was nonexistent prior to this accident.  In short, she accepted that the plaintiff’s pain seriously affected his enjoyment of life, ability to socialize with others… enjoy his children and engage in recreational pursuits. The plaintiff passed the threshold and the jury awarded him $25,000 in pain and suffering.  

This is not legal advice. It is a case comment on the Clark and Valdez matter at 2010 CarswellOnt 30.

If you have any questions concerning injures that you may have suffered in a car accident, please do not hesitate to call Haber & Associates at 905-639-8894 or use our contact form and someone will get back to you within 2 hours.

Matt Lalande

Oakville Car Accident Lawyers | Mississauga Car Accident Lawyers | Burlington Car Accident Lawyers
  

Since we are often referred vicious dog attack cases from all over the province we  monitor judgments closely as they are released.

In this case the Plaintiff was a 48 year old woman.  On July 19, 2008 she was confronted by a large Alaskan Shepherd which weighted approximately 80 pounds.  The dog bared its teeth at her.  She tried to cross the street to get to the other side but the dog came at her, grabbed her by the hip and threw her to ground.  The Plaintiff, Ms. Chatterton remembers screaming and eventually the owner, Ms. Cowan, came to pull the dog off of her.  The Plaintiff testified that this was a traumatic event for her. 

Ms. Chatterton recalls returning home, 3 or 4 houses up the street and her husband called the police and ambulance.  She received a rabies shot and some medication for her pain.  She also received medication to assist her with her shock.  As a result of the stress that the dog attack had created she took sleeping pills for some time.  She is now back to normal and is no longer disturbed by nightmares about dogs, however she does remain afraid of large dogs. 

Judge Lawres noted that the Plaintiff’s lawyer requested $15,000 to $20,000 for damages for pain and suffering.  He reviewed 5 or 6 cases.  He noted that her puncture wounds were not that large, they have healed and scars were not noticeable.  The Plaintiff did recover and was able to carry out her day to day activities.  He did notice that Ms. Chatterton’s emotional trauma was more serious than her physical injuries.  The nightmares were disturbing and the sleeping problems were disturbing.  She feared and continued to fear large dogs.  He noted that “understandably, the experience of being thrown to the ground, pinned down and bitten by a large dog was greatly distressing to her”.  He awarded Mr. Chatterton $8,500 for damages for pain and suffering, $2,000 for lawyer fees and $1,250.92 for disbursements.  He awarded her 2 days of lost pay and repayment to OHIP in the amount of $319.00.

This was an overall good recovery for the Plaintiff given the emotional trauma she suffered. 

If you have been the victim of an aggressive dog attack or a dog bite and you wish to learn your rights we have been specialists in this area for over 30 years.  We have issued hundreds of dog bite claims and recovered dog bite compensation and dog attack compensation for numerous victims all across Ontario.  Our client’s range from Sudbury to Ottawa to Windsor.  Both victims and lawyers often refer dog bite cases to us for trial. 

Please also note that if you are a paralegal or a lawyer, referrals are highly respected and negotiated on a per claim basis.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email matt.lalande@haber-lawyer.com.  He would be pleased to speak to anyone in this regard.

This is not legal advice but rather a case comment. This article does not create a solicitor client relationship.

Personal Injury Referral Fees Respected

Haber & Associates has a very large personal injury practice that is predominantly based on referrals from paralegals, lawyers and medical/treatment providers. As personal injurty trial lawyers since 1973, Haber & Associates have assisted many lawyers that do not practice personal injury law with recovering damages for their clients that have been injured in accidents. We have personal injury lawyers that can assist counsel in Burlington, Mississauga, Kitchener, Hamilton, Guelph, Sudbury, Ottawa and all other areas of Ontario.

We always respect referral account and provide above average referral rates to professionals that refer files to our offices.

If you have a client or patient that has suffered injuries in an accident or you have a specialty case that present complex or unusual legal issues, we would be happy to speak with you and assist any with legal representation.  We would welcome the opportunity to confer and cooperate with you in meeting the expectations of you and your client.

Please contact our offices via the contact form or call us at 905-639-8894 to speak with one of our accident lawyers.