Tag Archives: Nicole Fielding

Natural Waters: Five Risks to Check for Before You Dive In

Written By: Nicole Fielding and Lori Khaouli, Summer Student

Natural Waters: Five Risks to Check for Before You Dive In

Summertime in Ontario means spending more time in the water – lakes, rivers, and ponds. Unfortunately, the summer season also correlates with an increase in water-related injuries and fatalities, including drownings. In efforts to focus community attention on downing prevention, the Lifesaving Society has designated the third week of July as National Drowning Prevention Week.

In the 2019 Ontario Edition of the Drowning Report by the Lifesaving Society, 130-178 water-related fatalities were reported in Ontario over a five-year period from 2012-2016, with 64% percent of drownings occurring between May and September. Of these fatalities, 43% occurred in a lake or pond, and 22% occurred in a river. While spending time in natural bodies of water is a popular way to cool off in the hot summer months, many people don’t realize the potential dangers that accompany jumping into Ontario’s lakes and rivers.

Staying safe on the water means being prepared. Before you dive into a lake or river, look out for these risks which can occur in natural swimming settings:

  1. Water Quality Issues

Ontario’s lakes and rivers are monitored for harmful bacteria or other issues with the quality of the water. One major concern is the presence of elevated E.coli bacteria in natural waters, which can put you and your family at risk for infection. If water appears discolored, has an odor, or is cloudy, it may also be unfit for swimming.

Before you go for a swim, check online for health and safety updates about the natural waters you plan to swim in. Some resources for confirming water quality of Ontario’s lakes and rivers are linked below:

  • Ontario Parks: Beach Sampling alerts
  • Swim Guide: An App which tracks water quality information for over 8,000 bodies of water
  • Also, check the websites for various regions in Ontario. For example, the City of Toronto provides updates on Toronto’s beach water quality online on a daily basis.
  1. Posted Warning Signs

Many natural swimming sites, including lakes, beaches, and rivers, are regularly monitored for swimming conditions. Signs will often alert the public of hazards (such as rocks or shallow areas) that are difficult to see. If there are any posted warning signs concerning swimming, diving, or other unsafe water conditions, it is best to heed the warning and find somewhere else to swim.

  1. Fast-Moving Currents

Never underestimate the power of a current in the water. In particular, rivers and spots where two rivers meet will have fast currents. Fast-moving currents have the ability to overpower you without warning, even in shallow water. Get an idea of how fast the water is moving by throwing a stick into the current – if you could not catch the stick if you swam after it, then you will be at risk of the current overpowering you. Make sure to also look downstream and take note of any hazards such as rocks, dams, or waterfalls.

If you get caught in a river current or fast-moving water, the Canadian Red Cross recommends to roll onto your back and go downstream feet first to avoid hitting obstacles headfirst. When you are out of the strongest part of the current, swim straight towards the shore.

  1. No Lifeguard On Duty

Before heading out for a swim, take note of whether there is a lifeguard on duty at your chosen body of water. According to the Drowning Report by the Lifesaving Society, only 1% of all drownings occurred in a lifeguard-supervised setting. If there is no lifeguard on duty, it is recommended that you swim with a buddy. Be sure to maintain extra supervision of friends and family while swimming.

  1. Harsh Weather Conditions

Always keep yourself up to date on weather conditions before heading out for a swim. If a storm is on the horizon, this can present risks to you as a swimmer. As a general rule of thumb, if you can hear thunder, you can be struck by lightning. If you see lightning, evacuate the water and seek shelter. It is best to wait at least 30 minutes from the last clap of thunder before swimming again.

Strong winds can send debris into the water, and cause large waves and strong currents. Keeping tabs on the wind conditions using a weather app can help you avoid getting into a dangerous situation.


There is always a level of risk when swimming in a natural body of water. The conditions and quality of the water are subject to change at a moment’s notice – it is up to you to stay informed and be prepared for changing conditions if you make the decision to enjoy some of Ontario’s natural watering holes.

Check out National Drowning Prevention Week, which runs from July 19th to the 25th, 2020.

One way to protect yourself from water danger is by wearing a properly-fitted lifejacket Personal Floatation Device (PFD). For information on lifejackets and other safety tips, check out our blog posts here and here.

Be alert, and stay safe!

Does Expanding Patios mean Expanding Liability?

Written By: Nicole Fielding and Aidan Vining, Summer Student

Does Expanding Patios mean Expanding Liability

In an attempt to salvage businesses that have been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, many cities in Ontario are approving plans to allow restaurants and bars to expand their patio space onto sidewalks or into the street. On Monday June 29, 2020 Toronto City council approved the “CaféTO” plan that will allow bars and restaurants to do just that. Some cities like Guelph, Ontario, have contemplated closing the streets on weekends to allow bars and restaurants to expand. Whether by having socially distant queues stretching down the sidewalk or through roadside pickups – and now the expansion of patios – the general trend of businesses during the pandemic has been to conduct business beyond their typical property limits.

While this is great news to many Ontarians hoping to get back to a normal way of life, this trend also creates new issues of liability that many businesses should be aware of.

Occupier’s Liability

Under the general rules of the Occupiers Liability Act (Act), an occupier is responsible for maintaining a safe premises, and can be held liable if someone is injured on their premises. Pursuant to s.1 of the Act, an occupier includes:

(a) a person who is in physical possession of premises, or

(b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities there carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter the premises, despite the fact that there is more than one occupier of the same premises; (“occupant”)

While there may be a general rule against finding adjacent property owners liable for injuries suffered on property connected to their own, there are exceptions. Adjacent property owners can be held liable for injuries sustained on property connected to their own under special circumstances.

Special Circumstances

One such special circumstance occurs when the adjacent property owner allows a condition to flow from their property onto the property next door. An example would be a store owner allowing water to flow from their roof onto the sidewalk creating ice. This is what happened in Brazzoni v. Timmins (City), [1992] OJ No 254 (ONCA).

A second type of special circumstance has been held to exist where an owner assumes sufficient control over the adjacent property to be deemed an occupier under s.1(b) the Act. This is the most relevant circumstance for businesses expanding their premises as a result of COVID-19, and can be explained by the following cases:

In Bogoroch v Toronto, [1991] ON. Gen. Div., the plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk outside of a store when he slipped on ice and fell, resulting in physical injuries. The sidewalk where the slip and fall occurred was owned and maintained by the City of Toronto. The store had a permit allowing it to sell and advertise on part of the sidewalk. Counsel for the store argued that the store could not be held liable for any injuries sustained on the sidewalk as it was not an occupier. The court disagreed. The court found that the store intended to use the entire sidewalk, not just the portion for which it had a permit, to sell and display their goods on a continuing basis. The store had been extended out on to the sidewalk such that the sidewalk essentially became an aisle of the store. This use and dominance of the City’s sidewalk resulted in the court holding the store as an occupier and the store being held liable for the injuries.

In Moody v Toronto (City), [1996] On. Gen. Div., the plaintiff left a Toronto Blue Jays game at the old Skydome and tripped on the sidewalk owned by the City of Toronto just outside of the stadium. The plaintiff argued that the owners of the Skydome should be co-defendants to the City. The court agreed. The court held that the Skydome could be considered an occupier of the sidewalk adjacent to its property due to the fact that the sidewalk was used almost exclusively by the stadium’s attendees and that most attendees have no alternative entrance or ability to watch for hazards due to the crowded nature of the sidewalk.

In MacKay v Starbucks Corp., 2017 ONCA 350, the plaintiff slipped and fell on an ice-covered sidewalk owned by the City of Toronto just outside of the entrance to a Starbucks patio. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that Starbucks was an occupier as it had responsibility for and exerted sufficient control over the sidewalk entrance to its patio. The court also noted that the sidewalk area was primarily used by Starbucks customers and that Starbucks held control over the customer’s use of the sidewalk.

Why This Matters

By expanding business beyond their property limits, businesses are also expanding their potential liability. While stores may not have previously exercised sufficient control over these city-owned sidewalks bordering their businesses, they are now using the sidewalks to control where customers can stand according to markers, and to manage pedestrian traffic flow into their shop. Additionally, many businesses are now operating out of their front door or windows. This changes the control and use of the sidewalks adjacent to their building, and could result in these businesses being held liable for any injuries sustained on those areas that they now have control over. Finally, the expansion of patios means businesses are encroaching on areas they were not previously adjacent to.

Store owners who are expanding their businesses need to take extra precautions to ensure the areas they are controlling and assuming responsibility for are safe and free of hazards for all customers and pedestrians.

For more information on occupier’s liability, and steps to take if you are injured on someone’s property, check out our blogs below:

Nursing Home and Long-Term Care Home Negligence

Written By: Nicole Fielding and Aidan Vining, Summer Student

It is a difficult decision to move into a nursing home or long-term care home, and an even more difficult decision to make on behalf of a loved one. Individuals entering these homes are often some of the most vulnerable members of our community and it is important that they receive adequate care. Many take comfort in the belief that individuals will be well taken care of upon moving into a long-term care home. Unfortunately, as many Canadians are only recently learning, this is not always the case.

On May 26, 2020, a report produced by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) detailing the abhorrent state of several long-term care homes was made public. This report comes as a result of the CAF being called in to assist five homes with their COVID-19 efforts. As of June 7, 2020, there have been 1,557 resident deaths reported in Ontario in long-term care homes due to COVID-19. This makes up approximately 64.2% of all COVID-19-related deaths in Ontario. The report describes how residents of these homes were subjected to abuse, neglect, and at times, inhumane conditions.

Some of the most disturbing findings from these homes include:

  • Inadequate infection control – including allowing COVID-19 positive residents to wander among uninfected residents, lack of changing or disinfecting PPE between contact with positive and negative residents, and an overall disregard for cleanliness from significantly run-down and overworked staff
  • Bullying, drugging, and improper use of restraints on uncooperative residents
  • Improper feeding – including an allegation that staff neglect directly contributed to a resident’s death
  • Cockroaches, ants, and flies present in resident rooms
  • Untreated wounds, injuries, and sores on residents
  • Residents left in soiled diapers and beds for significant amounts of time

For many Canadians, the shocking report has shed light on a disturbing truth: Canada’s nursing homes and long-term care homes do not always provide adequate care to one of the most vulnerable segments of our population. The problems in our long-term care homes were not created by the COVID-19 pandemic, it simply took the pandemic to push some of the homes over the edge. It is clear that many long-term care homes are chronically understaffed and their internal policies and procedures desperately need to be revamped.

As a result of the report’s findings and the high rate of infection in these homes, the Ontario government has announced an independent commission will be launched in July to look into the province’s long-term care system as a whole.

There currently is a system in place for inspecting long-term care homes in Ontario. The Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care website outlines details regarding the Long-Term Care Homes Quality Inspection Program and Resident Quality Inspections (RQIs). However, the CBC reports that the number of RQIs that have actually occurred each year has been decreasing from almost all 626 homes in 2015-2017 to only 9 last year. The long-term care industry has been neglected, and as a result, so have the residents living in these homes.

Standard of Care

Nursing homes and long-term care homes owe a certain standard of care to their residents. This expected level of care is informed by the internal policies of the homes and other homes in the industry. The accepted standard is also informed by legislation, such as the Long-Term Care Homes Act,  which provides a number of basic rights that residents are entitled to, including:

  • The right to be treated with courtesy, respect, and dignity
  • The right to be protected from abuse
  • The right to not be neglected
  • The right to be properly sheltered, fed, clothed, groomed, and kept safe in a clean environment

Some of the most common forms of neglect and abuse occurring in Canadian nursing homes and long-term care homes include:

  • Failure to provide adequate and timely medical treatment
  • Neglect leading to malnutrition and dehydration
  • Wrongful death
  • Inadequate fall prevention
  • Medication errors
  • Physical, sexual, psychological and financial abuse

If you are concerned about a loved one in one of these homes, some warning signs to be aware of include:

  • Drastic weight loss, malnutrition or dehydration
  • Withdrawal or unusual changes in behavior
  • Poor hygiene – personal and clothing
  • Injuries – untreated or frequently occurring
  • Medication errors

If you or a loved one have suffered as a result of nursing home negligence, McLeish Orlando may be able to help.  For further information about nursing home negligence, please click here. For some tips about choosing a long-term care home, check out our blog post here.

The Importance of Evidence on Care Costing and Economic Loss: McNamee v Oickle, 2020 ONSC 1077

Written By: Patrick Brown and Nicole Fielding

A recent decision from Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice affirms the importance of cogent evidence, including expert evidence, for injured plaintiffs seeking recovery of damages in court.

Jury Questions at a Civil Jury Trial

At a civil jury trial involving a personal injury matter, jurors will be asked to make their decision by answering questions agreed upon by the parties or ruled upon by the presiding judge.

The test for putting a particular question to a jury is a fairly simple one. It has been affirmed by Ontario’s Court of Appeal in MB v 2014052 Ontario Ltd. (Deluxe Windows of Canada) and upheld in subsequent decisions since. Simply put, the question to be asked is whether there is some “reasonable evidence” upon which a jury, acting judicially in accordance with a judge’s instructions on the law, could make a choice in arriving at a finding. If the answer to this question is not yes, a question will not be put to a jury.

The term “reasonable evidence” has been further elaborated on by the Honourable Justice Beaudoin in the recent case of McNamee v Oickle, discussed below.

McNamee v Oickle, 2020 ONSC 1077

The Plaintiffs, Catherine McNamee and John McNamee were injured in a motor vehicle collision on February 11, 2014. Among the damages sought at trial were future costs of physiotherapy and medication, John’s massage therapy, as well as damages for John’s past and future loss of income and loss of economic opportunity/loss of competitive advantage.

Justice Beaudoin was asked to determine which questions could be put to the jury, following the hearing of evidence from both parties.

During the trial, the Plaintiffs called evidence from a variety of witnesses, including Catherine and John themselves, various medical professionals, and actuaries. The Defence argued that there was a lack of evidentiary foundation upon which damages could be awarded, particularly as it related to the necessity, frequency or specific costs of any of the therapies or medications, and the nature of John’s vocational disadvantage. The Defence argued that the Plaintiffs’ positions on these issues were not based on cogent evidence, but rather speculation, and as such, questions based on these issues should not be put to the jury.

Justice Beaudoin ruled that there was insufficient evidence called to support medical justification and costing for physiotherapy, massage therapy, and medication for John. Therefore he declined to allow requests for these health care expenses to go to the jury.

In deciding, Justice Beaudoin quoted the decision in Mundinger v Ashton, noting, “A plaintiff claiming damages for past or future health care costs must provide the jury with some precise calculation either from an expert witness or through the introduction of relevant invoices from which an accurate calculation can be made. Future health care costs should be supported by expert evidence indicating the anticipated frequency and duration of the recommended health care.”

With respect to John’s claims for past and future loss of income, Justice Beaudoin applied the same principles, and declined to have any income loss theories put to the jury. The judge found there was no evidence to support the assumption in the actuary’s report, nor was there any evidence upon which the jury could determine his pre-accident earning capacity.


This case serves as a firm reminder that Plaintiffs’ counsel and their experts (accounting, future care and medical) must provide sufficient evidence to substantiate a theory of damages before  a jury will be able to consider the theory. This will likely require the use of expert evidence at trial to outline the specific care needs of an injured Plaintiff, including both frequency and duration. It will also be important to lead expert evidence as to the costing of these needs and the present value of such costs.

When it comes to economic loss claims, a Plaintiff will be required to produce actual evidence of income or expectation of income when claiming a loss. This will include outlining the Plaintiff’s past and current income calculations, as well as leading specific evidence of what a Plaintiff could have expected to earn into the future. Simply relying on assumptions will not be sufficient at trial. A forensic accountant expert can assist in breaking down calculations of a Plaintiff’s economic loss to the jury.

Ultimately, it will be up to Plaintiffs to provide jurors with the necessary tools to determine that the damages they seek are reasonable and necessary. An effective way of doing so can be through the use of expert evidence, as described above. Without doing so, Plaintiffs will risk being unable to recover damages for their losses at trial.

See the full decision of McNamee v Oickle here.

For more information on the admissibility of expert evidence at trial, check out our blog here.

Are Waivers Legally Binding in Ontario?

Written By: Nicole Fielding and Leah Burlock, Student-at-Law

It is likely that we all have signed a waiver at some point in our lives. Many recreational activities require the signing of a waiver in order to participate, including skiing, rock climbing, and group exercise classes. But what effect do these waivers have, and how enforceable are they?

To waive means to give up a right. A waiver document is intended to be evidence of this act. Waiver documents like the ones often discussed in the context of personal injury matters are intended to be legally binding contracts in which you waive your right to bring a lawsuit against an individual or organization for any injuries or losses sustained during a subject activity or event.

The law surrounding the enforceability of activity waivers in Ontario is constantly evolving. Often, people sign waivers without understanding their scope, what they are agreeing to, or the rights they may be giving up. As a result, whether or not a court will uphold and enforce a waiver barring a lawsuit cannot be predicted with absolute certainty. With this being said, signing a waiver may not necessarily result in a person being denied a remedy if they have been injured as a result of someone else’s negligence.

There are certain elements that a waiver must include in order for a waiver to be deemed valid. As a general rule of thumb, the waiver must use language that refers to the circumstances of the accident, and the waiver must exclude liability for risks or injuries caused by the organization or individual’s negligence. In addition, the organization or individual seeking benefit from the waiver must take reasonable steps to bring the waiver’s clauses and provisions to the attention of the signing party so that its full effect is understood. If a person has been made aware of the full extent of the waiver and decides to sign, the exclusion provisions contained within it may be effective and valid.

There are, however, scenarios in which a signed waiver may not be enforced by the courts. The exact wording and the circumstances surrounding the signing of the waiver are important to consider. The following are factors that courts have considered when determining if a waiver is enforceable:

  1. The degree of experience the person has with the activity.[1]
  2. The person’s familiarity with the facility or locale. [2]
  3. Whether the person had the capacity to understand what the waiver
  4. The circumstances around how and when the waiver wording was presented to the person.[3] [4]
  5. Whether the person had an opportunity to read and understand the waiver or exclusionary clause.[5]
  6. How clear or ambiguous the waiver language is.[6]

Courts in Ontario have decided that certain waivers should not be enforced or recognized where the individual or facility seeking benefit from the waiver did not take the reasonable steps and precautions to ensure the safety of the participants.

The facts of the injury suffered or context in which the injuring incident occurred are also important. A waiver may not be enforceable if the injury sustained by the individual arose from an incident that falls outside of the scope of the waiver. For example, if a plaintiff signed a waiver for a skiing activity, but slipped and fell on a substance inside the ski lodge, this will likely be outside of the scope of waiver, and the individual will still be entitled to bring a lawsuit for that particular incident.

Activity waivers can also often include additional broad provisions which extend beyond simply waiving the right to bring a lawsuit against an organization in the event of injury. For example, some waiver contracts may include onerous indemnity clauses, which if enforced, can place significant financial hardship on the individual signing the waiver. Our firm was recently successful in defending a summary judgment motion involving an onerous indemnity clause found in an Iron Man race waiver. For this decision, click here.

The enforceability of a waiver will depend on the specific facts of the case, and case law in Ontario continues to evolve. Generally speaking, if a waiver’s subject matter is unclear, contains clauses that go beyond the scope of the waiver, or an individual signing was not given an opportunity to read and understand the contents, the waiver will not stand in Ontario’s courts.

For more information on the scope of liability waivers, please see the following article: “Resort Waivers: Does a Plaintiff Waive His or Her Rights Entirely?


[1] Wilson et al. v. Blue Mountain Resorts Ltd., 1974 CanLII 562 (ON SC)

[2] Mayer v. Big White Ski Resort Ltd., 1997 CanLII 4261 (BC SC)

[3] Trigg v. MI Movers International Transport Services Ltd. (C.A.), 1991 CanLII 7363 (ON CA)

[4] Gallant v. Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2009 CanLII 50755 (ON SC)

[5] Delaney v. Cascade River Holidays Ltd., 1983 CanLII 387 (BC CA)

[6] Leonard v. Dunn, 2006 CanLII 33419 (ON SC)

Anatomy of a Trial: Successful Trial Strategy

Don’t miss out on the third year of this premier program! Join us for a comprehensive examination of the best techniques for conducting a jury trial. This year we take it one step further and focus on high level trial strategy, providing you with the necessary skills and best practices required for success in the courtroom. Lawyers of all levels from the new litigator who has never conducted a trial, to the seasoned veteran, will benefit from this incredibly practical and valuable program.

You will learn how to think strategically when mapping out the course of your trial, manage documents, open and close to a jury, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and much more. A stellar faculty of trial judges from the Superior Court of Justice and experienced trial advocates will demonstrate these skills, and help you understand the tactical and strategic considerations that go into a trial. From demonstrations to debriefs, this program is a must for litigators of all levels, and trial experience. Join us to observe trial advocacy in action.

Don’t miss out on this incredibly popular program to gain valuable knowledge, insight, and skills to navigate a trial from start to finish.

McLeish Orlando lawyer, Lindsay Charles, will be co-chairing the two-day event.

McLeish Orlando lawyer, Nicole Fielding, will be acting as the witness for the Direct Examination of Plaintiff’s Wife and Cross-Examination of Plaintiff’s Wife at 11:05am and 11:25am on April 23, 2020.

At 1:25pm on April 23, 2020, McLeish Orlando Partner, Joseph A. Cescon will be the demonstrator during the Examination of the Family Physician.

Click here to see the full agenda.

Program Details: 

Thursday, April 23, 2020
8:00am Registration
8:30am-4:30pm Program (reception to follow)

Friday, April 24, 2020
8:00am Registration
8:30am-1:30pm Program

Location: OBA Conference Centre, 20 Toronto Street, 2nd Floor, Toronto, ON M5C 2B8

Program Price: 

CBA Member: $650* | CBA Student Member: $360* | Non-Member: $850*

Additional charge for hard copy materials:  CBA Member: $120* | Non-Member: $250*

Group discounts are available.  Please see details on the right.

(includes e-materials access) *plus applicable taxes

Don’t miss out on this incredibly popular program to gain valuable knowledge, insight, and skills to navigate a trial from start to finish.

Register Now!

Hunt v Peel Mutual Insurance Company: A further narrowing of the “use and operation” provision in automobile insurance

Written By: Dale Orlando and Nicole Fielding

Will an allegation of negligent supervision for a parent allowing their child to ride in a vehicle operated by an impaired driver trigger coverage under an auto insurance policy?

Ontario’s appellate court has decided it will not.

This question was decided recently in the 2019 Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Hunt v Peel Mutual Insurance Company. In July 2014, Mr. Hunt and his daughter were passengers in a vehicle that was involved in a crash in which Hunt’s daughter suffered serious injuries. Mr. Hunt’s girlfriend, the driver of the vehicle, was alleged to be under the influence of alcohol while driving. In his daughter’s claim, Hunt was alleged to have been negligent in allowing his daughter to ride as a passenger in the motor vehicle operated by an impaired driver.

In a motion at the Superior Court of Justice, Hunt sought a declaration that his girlfriend’s vehicle’s insurance policy had a duty to defendant him in the lawsuit, and that he was an “insured person” under the Insurance Act. The Defendant, Peel Mutual Insurance Company, took the position that it did not owe Mr. Hunt a defence or indemnity because the allegations of negligence against Mr. Hunt did not involve the “use or operation” by Mr. Hunt of the insured vehicle.

At the Superior Court of Justice, the Honourable Justice Flynn held that “simply allowing one’s child to ride with an impaired driver, without more, is not enough to trigger the duty to defend and to indemnify” (paragraph 13). The father’s acts in this case did not meet the common law causation test established in Vytlingam (Litigation Guardian of) v Farmer (2007 SCC 46), and did not fall within policy coverage.

At the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the decision of Justice Flynn was upheld and Hunt’s appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the “plain and ordinary meaning of section 239(1)(a) precludes recovery”. Even though Hunt’s daughter injuries arose from the use of the vehicle, Mr. Hunt’s liability for her loss or damage did not. The Court pointed to a statutory requirement that the occupant’s liability must be caused by or connected to the use or operation of the automobile, and determined that the father’s liability for his daughter’s damages did not arise from the use of a vehicle, but rather, from his parenting.

A notice of appeal was recently filed by Mr. Hunt, so we will wait to see if the Supreme Court of Canada will rule in on this important decision.

This case serves to further narrow the scope of s. 239(1)(a) of the Insurance Act, limiting liability coverage under an auto policy for claims of negligence against parents. Another potential avenue for parents sued by children would be through the parent’s homeowner’s insurance policy. However, this too may be limited, as these types of policies often contain provisions which exclude claims of bodily injury to an insured or any individual residing in the same household.

For more information on negligence and minors, check out our blog post here. To read further about how to protect your children in motor vehicles, click here.

McLeish Orlando is Excited to Welcome Three New Associates to Our Team of Lawyers

We are proud to announce that Nicole Fielding, Courtney Stewart, and Taraneh Etemadi have joined our team of lawyers.

Nicole Fielding is a long standing member of McLeish Orlando, having held various positions at the firm working part time and full time during the summer while completing her high school and undergraduate studies. She would continue as both a summer and articling student at the firm.  In 2019, after 8 years, Patrick Brown’s team was proud to have Nicole join as an associate. Nicole’s practice is dedicated to representing individuals or families who have suffered catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one as a result of negligence.

Courtney Stewart is also a long standing member of McLeish Orlando, having joined the firm as an indexing assistant in May 2010. She returned as a summer law student and then completed her articles with the firm. After her call to the bar in 2019, she joined Dale Orlando’s team as an associate. Courtney’s practice is dedicated to helping those who have personally experienced a serious or life threatening injury as well as individuals who have lost family members due to the negligence of others. Having lost an immediate family member who was killed by an impaired driver, Courtney knows how difficult the legal process can be to navigate. She is able to bring this understanding and compassion to her clients, and she is dedicated to ensuring that individuals and families involved in serious accidents receive the compensation and treatment that they deserve.

Taraneh Etemadi joined McLeish Orlando as a summer law student and then completed her articles with the firm. After her call to the bar in 2019, she joined Dale Orlando’s team as an associate. While at law school, Taraneh participated in the Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues, achieving the role of Solicitations Editor in her final year. She competed in the Ontario Trial Lawyer’s Association Moot, and worked for a tax and civil litigation law firm throughout law school. Taraneh’s practice is committed to representing people who either have personally suffered a catastrophic injury or individuals who have lost a loved one due to the negligence of others.

For over 20 years, McLeish Orlando has successfully represented clients in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death litigation. We are proud of our firm’s enviable record of success, including obtaining the single largest personal injury judgment in Canadian history.*

With our newly expanded office, McLeish Orlando is continuing to grow our practice through Ontario.

*Disclaimer: Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.