Tag Archives: salvatore shaw

Bikes, Bumps and Cookies – Teaching your children about bicycle safety

Written By: Salvatore Shaw and Brandon Pedersen, Summer Student

With another school year finished, children are now eager to get outside and enjoy the summer months. One of the many activities that children enjoy is riding their bicycle. There are few feats more rewarding for child than finally taking off the training wheels on their bicycle and being able to ride freely and feel the wind against their face. Sadly, however, cycling can be a dangerous activity without the right equipment or a good understanding of safe riding practices.

Tips and Safety Measures

There are a number of things that you and your child should keep in mind in order to reduce the chance of injury. Here are some top tips on bicycle equipment and safe practices you can review with your child before they ride:

Starting out – sizing your bike

It is important to ensure your children are riding a bike that fits properly. Children are continuously growing, and the growth over the course of one year can make a big difference in bike safety. A bike that is too big or too small can’t be properly controlled and can be dangerous for the cyclist and those around them. As a general rule, a cyclist should be able to stand flat-footed over their bike’s frame with two to five centimeters of clearance.

Always wear a helmet, it’s the law!

A helmet gives you and your child a real chance of walking away from a fall or collision with a car. Not only that, but Ontario law requires every cyclist under the age of 18 to wear an approved bicycle helmet while riding! The current fine for bicycle riders under 18 travelling on any public road without a helmet is $75.  Regardless of whether the law requires you to wear a helmet while cycling, a helmet can greatly reduce the risk of permanent injury.  We strongly recommended that all riders wear helmets.

In order to be the most effective, it is important to ensure that the helmet fits your child properly. The easiest way to ensure that a helmet fits right is to check that the edge of the helmet is 2 fingers above the eyebrows to protect the forehead and 1 finger should fit between the chin and the chin strap. It is also important to ensure that you only use a helmet that is in good condition, without any cracks or defects to the shell, protective foam, or chinstraps.  Also check to see that the expiry date for the helmet (normally located on a sticker inside the helmet) hasn’t passed.

Practicing good safety habits

So, your child is ready to go, now what? It is essential to teach your child the fundamentals of cycling and road safety before letting them loose in the neighborhood.   It is important to start developing these good habits at a young age. For a checklist of road safety tips for young cyclists, see our fun Guide to Bike Safety for Kids!

And parents don’t forget to always remember to practice what you preach!  Children most often do what they see, rather than what they are told.

If you or someone you know has been injured in a cycling incident, contact the team at McLeish Orlando for more information about your rights, and receive a free consultation.

How to Best Leverage the Use of Surveillance and Investigation in Court Part 3

This is the final post in our series of “How to Best Leverage the Use of Surveillance and Investigation in Court”. In the previous posts we discussed obligations regarding the surveillance and investigative material before , during and after examinations, and before trial. In this blog post you will learn the final steps of using surveillance at trial.


1. Using Privileged documents as Substantive Evidence

If a defendant wishes to use surveillance or investigative material as substantive evidence at trial, the defendant must comply with Rule 30.09, which sets out strict procedural requirements.  Continue reading

How to Best Leverage the Use of Surveillance and Investigation in Court Part 2

Last week we looked at the defendants disclosure obligations regarding surveillance and investigative material where a claim of privilege has been made, in this weeks post we will look into using surveillance at the examination for discovery, after discovers and before trial.

II) At the Examination for Discovery

In order to obtain the particulars of surveillance before the plaintiff’s discovery, the plaintiff should endeavor to be the first to deliver a notice of examination.   By doing so, the plaintiff can take advantage of Rule 31.04(3). This rule states that the party who first serves a notice of examination “may examination first and complete the examination before being examined by another party, unless the court orders otherwise”. Continue reading

How to Best Leverage the Use of Surveillance and Investigation in Court Part 1

This is Part 1 of a 3 part series on how to best leverage the use of surveillance and investigation in court through a plaintiff’s perspective.

surveillanceSurveillance of an injured plaintiff is a common tactic used by defense counsel to defend personal injury actions.  More recently, in addition to traditional video surveillance, on-line investigations are now being conducted of plaintiffs. Surveillance and on-line investigation is conducted at a variety of times throughout the litigation and it is impossible for a plaintiff’s lawyer to predict exactly when it will be done.   This blog will discuss the defendant’s pre-trial disclosure obligations as it relates to video surveillance and on-line investigation, the use of this material at trial and helpful strategies plaintiff’s counsel can employ to obtain the particulars of this investigative material in advance of trial.


Below is a discussion of the defendant’s disclosure obligations regarding surveillance and investigative material where a claim of privilege has been made.

I) Before examinations for discovery

The term “document” is defined broadly by Rule 30.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to include “a sound recording, videotape, film, photograph, chart, graph, map, plan, survey, book of account, and data and information in electronic form”. As a result, the rules governing disclosure and production of documents apply equally to surveillance and investigative material.

Rule 30.02(1) requires a party to disclose “every document relevant to any matter in issue in an action…whether or not privileged is claimed in respect of the document.” Rule 30.02(2) imposes a further requirement that all relevant documents be produced unless privileged is claimed over the document.

Rule 30.03 requires every party to an action to serve an affidavit of documents disclosing “to the full extent of the party’s knowledge, information, and belief” all documents that are (a) relevant to any matter in issue in the action and (b) are or have been in the party’s possession, control or power.   Any investigative reports and surveillance obtained before discovery must be disclosed in the defendant’s affidavit of documents. In most cases, the defendant will claim privilege over these documents, such that they must be listed in Schedule “B”.

To learn if surveillance or on-line investigation has been undertaken before discovery, a plaintiff should always require a defendant to deliver a sworn and certified affidavit of documents, or at a minimum, a draft affidavit of documents, in advance of examinations for discovery.  Sometimes a defendant will use boiler plate wording to set out the documents under Schedule “B”. If there is any concern over what may be contained in Schedule “B”, counsel may insist on a particularized Schedule “B”, with a list and description of every document together with the grounds for the claim of privilege.

As internet investigation of the plaintiff is now being conducted by the defendant, counsel should be aware that the disclosure obligations under the Rules above include any electronic documentation, including those obtained from the internet. While an investigator’s report which may accompany this material would satisfy a claim for privilege, the actual documents obtained (ie. photographs from Facebook or postings from twitter) ought to be listed in Schedule “A”, as these documents would not satisfy the elements to establish litigation privilege.    In Leduc v. Roman[1], the court clearly held that online content is “data and information in electronic form” producible as “documents” under the Rules.   As a result, relevant documents obtained from the internet must be identified in the defendant’s affidavit of documents.

Come back next week when we discuss “At the Examination for Discovery


[1] [2009] CanLII 6838 (Ont.S.C.)