Advocacy Experience

Represented the Plaintiff who brought an interlocutory motion to strike portions of the Statement of Defence, which referenced College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) proceedings and evidence from those proceedings. The Court agreed to strike several provisions of the Statement of Defence and award costs in the cause.

Represented Ms. Chin in a multi-day wrongful dismissal civil trial. The Court agreed with our submissions that her prior service with a previous employer (who went bankrupt) should be considered in the length of her common law notice.

Represented MMH, the law firm for the Administrative Staff Union in a motion that sought its removal due to an alleged conflict of interest. OPSEU, who brought the motion, argued that the law firm had conflicting interests due to its ongoing representation of another union against OPSEU. After multiple days of hearing, the arbitrator dismissed OPSEU's motion, allowing the law firm to continue to represent the ASU.

Intervened on behalf of the Workers' Health and Safety Legal Clinic in an appeal concerning the statutory interpretation of s. 125 of the Canada Labour Code.

Assisted in the representation of Dr. Elgadi, the Defendant in a wrongful dismissal action brought by a former employee. Dr. Elgadi terminated the Plaintiff for cause upon discovering that she had ordered blood work for a patient without Dr. Elgadi's consent or knowledge. The Court found that the Plaintiff's actions were "tantamount to forgery, falsification and dishonesty" and dismissed the Plaintiff's claim in entirety.

Represented Mr. Murray who alleged he was wrongfully terminated after raising health and safety concerns with his employer. After several days of hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board made several credibility findings in favour of Mr. Murray and concluded that Mr. Murray was unlawfully terminated.

Represented the estate of a worker in an appeal involving several issues including survivor benefits. The worker had received initial entitlement to benefits after sustaining a work-related injury while driving a long-haul truck between Quebec and Ontario.

Three years after the accident, the worker tragically committed suicide.

The estate applied to WSIB for survivor benefits for the widow and two children arguing that the worker's suicide was connected to his work-related injury. The WSIB, in addition to denying the claim for survivor benefits, retroactively reversed the worker's initial entitlement to benefits due to a finding that the worker had been intoxicated while driving, taking him out of the course of employment.

The WSIAT overturned the WSIB's decision to retroactively deny the worker's initial entitlement, as well as found that the worker's injury contributed to his suicide. The client was entitled to survivor benefits and the worker was posthumously entitled to psycho-traumatic disability benefits and a NEL redetermination. The result was a six-figure award to the estate of the worker and ongoing financial support to both the widow and two children.

Represented a client in an appeal involving the denial of benefits for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The WSIB held that the client's diagnosis was not due to occupational exposure. WSIAT allowed the appeal based on the significant contributing factor test.

Represented a client who was no longer able to work following a work-related injury. The appeal was successful and the client was entitled to ongoing entitlement retroactively from three years of the date of the decision, as well as full Loss of Earnings for a period of time.

Represented the Tribunal Counsel Office ("TCO"), a specialized legal department at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, in a preliminary hearing to determine whether a party's chosen representative was legally entitled to represent him with respect to his appeal.

Represented a client who was denied chronic pain disability (CPD) benefits stemming from a repetitive strain injury that resulted in a 17% Non-Economic Loss. WSIAT allowed the appeal and held that the degree of pain the client experienced was inconsistent with the organic findings.