Tag Archives: Dale Orlando

Canada Day Weekend: Fireworks Safety

By: Dale Orlando and Nicole Fielding, Summer Student

Fireworks

The Canada Day weekend is fast approaching, and with this year being Canada’s 150th birthday, it is a special time to celebrate. Fireworks can be a fun and exciting activity to enjoy with family and friends, but they can also be dangerous and unpredictable when handled incorrectly. Improper use of pyrotechnics can result in serious burns and personal injuries. If you choose to host your own fireworks show, there are a number of things to keep in mind to ensure a fun and safe fireworks display.

Planning Ahead

Before you pick up your own fireworks, it is a good idea to check out the bylaws in your area concerning their use. The Government of Canada, Provinces and many Municipalities have set restrictions on when and where fireworks may be enjoyed.  For example, in Toronto, fireworks displays/discharges must comply with the City of Toronto fireworks bylaw, and fireworks may only be used without a permit on designated holidays.

When obtaining fireworks, purchase them from a reliable source that sells products meeting safety standards. Some Municipalities issue vendor permits to regulated retailers. Steer clear from illegal explosives or firecrackers, and do not attempt to create your own.

Consumer fireworks cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 18.

Prepare Your Display

Location is critical when it comes to setting off fireworks. Set up your supplies in a clear, open space, away from combustible materials and hazards, on a hard, flat and level surface to ensure stability. Always read the instructions, cautions and warnings on the fireworks you have purchased.

Arrange spectators a safe distance away from the set-off location, and be sure that any wind is blowing away from your audience. Discharge fireworks only if weather conditions allow for it.

Before igniting, fireworks should be buried at least half their length in a bucket of sand if a firing base is not available. Never discharge fireworks from a metal or glass container. Be sure that all the fireworks are firmly supported in their base or sand, and aimed straight and away from your audience. Always keep a water hose or a pail or water close by when discharging fireworks.

Natural Resources Canada has issued a short video about fireworks safety which can be viewed here.

Protect Yourself and Your Family

When setting off your fireworks, light only one firework item at a time. Always light the fuse at the tip, and light the firework at arms length, then stand back. If you get a “dud” or defective firework, never attempt to re-light it, and wait 30 minutes to ensure it does not go off.

Only a responsible adult should be handling fireworks. Always keep fireworks out of reach of children, and store them in a space that is inaccessible to younger members of your family.

Sparklers burn extremely hot, and can cause clothing to catch fire, cause blindness or result in severe burns. If choosing to include sparklers in the celebration, remember to keep these away from young children. Sparklers should be doused in water or immersed in a bucket of sand after burning out, as they remain hot for some time.

Sometimes, the safest and most stress-free way to enjoy fireworks is to attend a show handled by professionals. There might be events hosted in your community being overseen by a trained, certified professional. Check out the Government of Canada’s list of Canada Day celebrations happening near you.

If you or someone you know has suffered burns or other serious injuries as the result of an accident, contact one of the critical injury lawyers at McLeish Orlando LLP for a free consultation.

McLeish Orlando Partners Recognized in 2017 Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory Rankings

Lawyers included in the Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory are nominated and voted in by their peers based on their skill and expertise within the practice area of personal injury.  Four partners from McLeish Orlando have once again been chosen for inclusion in the list this year.

Congratulations to:

John McLeish

  • Most Frequently Recommended
    • Personal Injury – Represents Plaintiffs
  • Repeatedly Recommended
    • Medical Negligence – Represents Plaintiffs

Dale Orlando

  • Most Frequently Recommended
    • Personal Injury – Represents Plaintiffs
  • Repeatedly Recommended
    • Medical Negligence – Represents Plaintiffs

Patrick Brown

  • Most Frequently Recommended
    • Personal Injury – Represents Plaintiffs

Rikin Morzaria

  • Repeatedly Recommended
    • Personal Injury – Represents Plaintiffs

McLeish Orlando donates over 500 turkeys to the Daily Bread Food Bank’s annual food drive

Once again we are honoured to support the Toronto Daily Bread Food Bank and their annual Holiday Drive held at the Sheraton Centre in Toronto.  This morning we donated over 500 turkeys for the holiday drive to help the fight against hunger here in the City of Toronto.

This is our second year supporting the Toronto Daily Bread Food Bank with our annual McLeish Orlando Turkey Giveaway during the Holiday Season.  Over the past two years we have donated over 1000 turkeys to this drive and we are happy to continue to support this cause.  The Daily Bread Food Bank’s Holiday Drive will continue until December 31st.   We encourage all of our colleagues to join us next year for our Annual McLeish Orlando Turkey Giveaway to help the Daily Bread Food Bank’s mission.

Here are a few snap shots from today’s event hosted by Breakfast Television on air at the BT Christmas Party.

Turkey Giveaway

 McLeish Orlando’s Partners Patrick Brown, Dale Orlando, and John McLeish alongside our friend Frank Ferragine from Breakfast Television.

Turkey Giveaway12014

The lovely ladies from the Daily Bread Food Bank accepting food and toy drive donations today at the BT Christmas Party.

Turkey Giveaway2014

Group shot of the 2nd Annual McLeish Orlando Turkey Giveaway.

McLeish Orlando would like to wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season and best wishes for 2015!

McLeish Orlando’s principal partners recognized in the 2015 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada ®

We are proud to announce that John McLeish, Dale Orlando and Patrick Brown have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2015 edition of Best Lawyers in Canada ® as leading legal practitioners in Personal Injury Litigation.

Best Lawyers in Canada® is the oldest and most respected international peer-review publication in the legal profession. Lawyers who are recognized demonstrate a high level of respect amongst their peers for their abilities, professionalism and integrity.

Congratulations to all of the lawyers who were selected to be included in the 2015 edition of Best Lawyers in Canada®.

 

Non-lawyers in the ownership mix

Alternative business structures could result in fewer, more well-funded firms

By: Dale Orlando, McLeish Orlando LLP

Published in: The Lawyers Weekly, June 27, 2014 issue

On Dec. 9, 2011, Law Society of Upper Canada members identified as a priority for the coming year the examination of alternative business structures (ABS) as a means of delivering legal services in Ontario. Based on the contents of the first report to convocation of the ABS working group (last June) and numerous comments at the society’s ABS symposium in October of last year, some form of ABS is likely to be approved in Ontario in the coming months and that will likely have implications for the personal-injury bar. Continue reading

The effect of living longer and working older

Economic loss calculations can be seriously altered by a wave of new retirement data

By: Dale Orlando, McLeish Orlando LLP

Published in: The Lawyers Weekly Feb. 7, 2014 issue

In a typical personal injury case, there are a number of approaches to developing the theory of economic loss and a number of assumptions are made as part of that theory.  In cases where a person is unlikely to return to work or has returned to work but is likely to have to retire earlier than otherwise would have been the case, a major part of the theory revolves around the person’s expected retirement age, but for the accident.  While each case turns on its own facts, to some extent both plaintiff counsel and defence counsel will base their theories on a presumed retirement age.    Many defence theories are based on an outdated notion that people are embracing the idea of Freedom 55 and retiring earlier than in previous generations.  The recent data on this point clearly shows an upward trend in retirement age.  There are two very good reasons for this trend; people are living longer and saving less for retirement and people simply cannot afford to retire. Continue reading

Preparing an expert witness for trial

By: Dale Orlando, McLeish Orlando LLP

Published in: Insurance Lawyer Magazine

on October 13, 2013

In a court action for damages arising out of an injury, judges and juries will rely upon the opinions of health professionals in order to understand and interpret the facts of a plaintiff’s claim. However, many health professionals are understandably hesitant to express their opinions within this context. This article is intended to assist health professionals in this regard, through a discussion of what a health professional may expect and how best to prepare, if called to appear as a witness at trial.

The scope of the expert’s testimony

When an expert takes the stand at trial, he or she will not be narrowly confined and limited to the precise content of his or her report, which would have been delivered pursuant to theEvidence Act. A medical expert has a right to explain, amplify and expand on what is latent in the medical report – so long as they are not opening a new field. The purpose of the rule is to facilitate orderly trial preparation by providing opposing parties with adequate notice of opinion evidence to be adduced at trial. Continue reading

Toronto family launches $3.2 million damage suit against TTC

As seen on AdvocateDaily.com

Toronto (July 3rd, 2013) – The family of a 48-year Toronto woman, struck and killed by a TTC bus last January, has launched a $3.2 million damage suit against the driver – who faces charges arising from the tragedy – and the Toronto Transit Commission.

“The sad reality, is that what happened to Wendy Martella, could happen to anyone,” said Dale Orlando, of McLeish Orlando LLP, the lawyer representing the Martella family. “Wendy was simply crossing the street, on her way home from work as a Senior Management Support Officer with Scotia Bank, when she was struck and killed by the TTC bus as it accelerated through a red light, without warning.”

The TTC bus driver, Magdalene Angelidis, appeared in court on Thursday, June 6th, 2013, on charges of careless driving and failing to stop at a red light.

Orlando writes in the statement of claim, that on January 23, 2013, at approximately, 4:00 p.m., Angelidis stopped the TTC bus in the intersection of Eglinton Avenue and Sinnott Road to pick up a passenger. The bus drove through the intersection, and a red light, striking Martella as she crossed the street on a green light. She suffered serious injuries, and died the following day at Sunnybrook Medical Centre.

The Martella family, alleges the TTC bus driver was distracted and failed to follow proper protocols by making an unscheduled stop in an intersection, writes Orlando in the statement of claim.

The TTC bus driver is scheduled to make a second court appearance at Old City Hall court on July 4.

See more at:

Videos:

Study highlights need for brain injury awareness

As seen on AdvocateDaily.com

Brain injuries are occurring at an alarming rate among Ontario teenagers, a new study has found, making education and awareness on the effects of a blow to the head crucial for parents, says Toronto critical injury lawyer Dale Orlando.

“I think there’s a common misconception where people talk about a concussion without understanding that a concussion is considered to be a brain injury,” says Orlando, partner with McLeish Orlando LLP. “A concussion, by definition, is a mild or moderate brain injury.”

The study found that one in five teens in Ontario has had a concussion or another brain injury in their lifetime that was serious enough to leave them unconscious for five minutes or to send them to hospital overnight, CTV reports.

As well, a total of 5.6 per cent reported they had had a concussion or significant brain injury in the past year, it adds.

“Statically, the majority of people who suffer mild traumatic brain injuries go on to have full symptom resolution, but there is a percentage that have significant ongoing difficulties as a result of their mild traumatic brain injury,” says Orlando. “But even for the people that do go on to have a good recovery and are symptom free, they become much more vulnerable to more significant impairments if they suffer a second head injury.”

The study used data from the 2011 Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey, CTV reports, noting it used responses from almost 9,000 students from Grades 7-12.

The survey found that the majority of traumatic brain injuries for the teens occurred during sports: 47 per cent for girls and 63.5 per cent for boys, with hockey and soccer accounting for more than half the injuries, the report says.

“I think as parents we have to be hyper vigilant and aware that a concussion isn’t just a minor thing like a scrape or a bruise that happens through the course of childhood that isn’t a big deal,” says Orlando.

“Many Canadian boys and girls grow up chasing the dream of making a living playing hockey, but Peewee games and Bantam games – they’re not the NHL,” he says. “Rules regarding hits to the head should be stringently enforced. Any hit directed to the head should have serious consequences for the person delivering the hit. Hitting from behind, driving somebody’s head into the boards … the penalty should be increased to eliminate it from the sport.”

On the soccer field, Orlando says it’s common to see injuries from regular activities, like heading the ball.

“That may not be appropriate for children of a certain age,” he says.

Orlando says while improvements have been made in sporting rules, more can be done to prevent serious injury.

“I think we’ve come a long way from the days of somebody suffering a concussion and having the coach say ‘Get back out there for your next shift.’ There are practices and protocols in place,” he says. “Parents have to recognize that a concussion is a mild traumatic brain injury and the restrictions associated with return to play are there for a reason.”

Negligent drivers can still pursue claims against a road authority, says decision

As seen on AdvocateDaily.com

 

A recent case points out very clearly that there is not an absolute bar when it comes to whether a negligent driver can still pursue a negligence claim against a road authority, Toronto critical injury lawyer Dale Orlando says in Law Times.

Deering v. Scugog (Township), says the article, involves a 2004 motor vehicle accident that left two teenage sisters quadriplegics, with the trial judge finding the defendant municipality to be two-thirds liable with the drive responsible for the remainder. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal last year, and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal in December.

As all avenues of appeal have now been exhausted in the case, says Law Times, the Superior Court’s decision is the latest word on the duty of municipalities to keep roads in a reasonable state of repair and the “expected driving capability of the ordinary driver.”

Whether a negligent driver can still pursue a negligence claim, says Orlando, partner with McLeish Orlando LLP who represented the younger sister, “is a question of apportionment after objective analysis of the state of non-repair of the road.”

“Shannon Deering was admittedly negligent. She was over the speed limit on an unfamiliar, hilly road and, accordingly, contributed to the happening of the accident. But that is the second question. The first is: On an objective analysis of the test, did the road represent an unreasonable risk of harm to an ordinary, average user, not to a negligent driver? This includes drivers who are not super drivers,” he says.

Orlando also says he believes that the Deering decision doesn’t create any new tests but reinforces previous decisions. “Municipalities are not held to a standard to make the road safe for negligent drivers. That’s not what the case means,” he explains.

Benefits deduction requires strict burden of proof

As seen on AdvocateDaily.com

DVOOnly in the rarest of cases will a defendant in a personal injury action be permitted to deduct the value of a future stream of accident benefits from a tort award for future pecuniary loss, Toronto critical injury lawyer Dale Orlando writes in Lawyers Weekly.

Referring to the decision of Madam Justice Darla Wilson, in Hoang v. Vincentini [2013] O.J. No. 321, Orlando says the jury assessed the damages of the injured plaintiff at just over $684,000 for future medical treatment, rehabilitation, attendant care, housekeeping and home maintenance.

“In Hoang, the defendant’s counsel sought an order reducing the award by the amount available to the injured plaintiff pursuant to the statutory accident benefits schedule,” he writes.

“As the plaintiff had been designated catastrophically impaired, had the defendant’s argument been accepted, the amounts remaining available pursuant to the schedule would have effectively reduced the defendant’s obligation to pay the jury’s award for future cost of care to zero.”

In dismissing the defendant’s motion to reduce the damages for future health care expenses, Wilson makes it clear that a defendant seeking such a deduction faces a very strict burden of proof and that a deduction will only be made if the defendant places “persuasive evidence” before the court to demonstrate that it is “patently clear” the plaintiff qualifies for the future benefits, the article says.

“In my experience, the type of proof required simply does not exist unless the plaintiff has entered into a full and final settlement of entitlement to future benefits under the schedule,” writes Orlando, partner with McLeish Orlando LLP. “This is a sensible approach when one considers who is in a better position to bear the risk of non-payment of a future benefit: a plaintiff, who has established need before a jury, or a defendant who has caused the harm.”