Law Times

October 3, 2016

The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario

Issue link: http://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/733716

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 0 of 15

Judge allows lawsuit against LSUC to proceed BY ALEX ROBINSON Law Times A Superior Court justice has allowed two parts of a lawsuit against the Law Society of Upper Canada to go forward in a case lawyers say illustrates how hard it is to get costs awarded against the regulator. Paul Robson brought a claim against the law society, seeking $220 million in damages, for what he says was a negligent investigation and a malicious prosecution in disciplin - ary proceedings against him that lasted from 2007 to 2014. In response to the claim, the law society filed a motion for an order striking out the entire action. Justice Stephen Firestone struck Robson's negligent investigation claim, but he allowed his claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of public office. Brian Radnoff, who has repre - sented lawyers in lawsuits against the LSUC, says the case shows the lengths a person has to take in order to try to recoup costs from the law so - ciety. He did not act in this case. "What this really demonstrates is the frustration with how difficult it is to get costs against the law society be - cause that's essentially Mr. Robson's complaint," he says. "This is just effectively an alterna- tive manner for him to recover the costs he incurred." The law society's disciplinary tribunal revoked Robson's licence after it found him guilty of profes - sional conduct for concealing $1.4 million in assets from creditors. But that revocation order was later over- turned by the law society's appeal division and Robson was not award- ed any costs, despite having asked for $750,000. In his claim against the law so- ciety and a number of former and current LSUC employees, Robson said the law society engaged in an "irresponsible and malicious cam - paign" against him. He said that serious f laws and er- rors marked the investigation, which he said only sought to secure a con- viction. RECONCILIATION REQUIRED Governments called to action on indigenous issues P7 TTC TWITTER TROUBLE Employees' privacy invaded: union P7 FOCUS ON Litigation P8 See Tough, page 5 PM #40762529 $5.00 • Vol. 27, No.31 October 3, 2016 L AW TIMES C O V E R I N G O N T A R I O ' S L E G A L S C E N E • W W W . L A W T I M E S N E W S . C O M & $#&!&jmmm$cYa[bbWh$Yec ntitled-4 1 12-03-20 10:44 AM Follow LAW TIMES on www.twitter.com/lawtimes BY ALEX ROBINSON Law Times T he Court of Appeal has ruled an illegal immigrant could not col- lect a personal injury claim from a provincial insurance fund after he was hit by an unidentified driver while crossing the street in 2011 because "he was not ordinarily resident in Ontario" at the time. Jarley Silva, a Brazilian citizen, had been living in the country illegally for years and had no insurance at the time of the accident, which left him with a shat- tered left ankle and a fracture to his right knee. He brought a claim against the un- named driver and the Superintendent of Financial Services under the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act for compen- sation from the province's Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. The fund provides compensation to people who have experienced injury or property damage in an accident with an unidentified driver. At issue in the case was s. 25(1) of the act, which bans payouts from the fund for someone who "ordinarily resides in a jurisdiction outside Ontario," ex- cept for specific circumstances. A non- resident can get paid out if the jurisdic- tion in which he or she is a resident pro- vides them with recourse of a "substan- tially similar character" to that provided by the act. In Silva v John Doe, both Silva and the defendants moved to have the case determined by summary judgment. The judge ruled in favour of the de- fendants, saying Silva was not ordin- arily resident in Ontario at the time of the accident and that his presence in the province was the result of "deception and illegality." Silva appealed the decision, saying the motion judge did not apply the right test under s. 25(1) of the act. Rebecca Nelson, of Azevedo & Nel- son Injury Law, who represented Silva on his appeal, argued that rather than using a test to determine whether Silva was an ordinary resident in Ontario, the court should have looked at whether he was or- dinarily resident in Brazil. Nelson says that the plain wording of the legislation only required the judge to determine whether Silva was a resident of a jurisdiction outside of Ontario. "That is an important distinction, because the only reason really he is not considered ordinarily resident in See Public, page 4 Matthew Owen says a recent ruling shows that 'it's hard to assert you're an ordinary resident if you're concealing your presence in the jurisdiction.' Photo: Robin Kuniski Hurt in accident, but no compensation from provincial fund Injury claim by illegal immigrant denied: court Brian Radnoff says a recent case against the law society shows the lengths a person has to take in order to try to recoup costs from the regulator. When you're working, we're working. End-To-End Legal Marketing Solutions. Visit LawyerMarketingCanada.com Untitled-1 1 2016-09-26 9:09 AM

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Law Times - October 3, 2016
loading...
Law Times

To access your digital edition please enter your email address as both your username and password. Not a subscriber? Please call 1-800-387-5164 and subscribe today. Login failed? Please contact aaron.green@tr.com.

 or  free preview Remember me