Tag Archives: Toronto Critical Injury Lawyer

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    Many defence theories are based on an outdated notion that people are embracing the idea of Freedom 55 and retiring earlier than in previous generations.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

McLeish Orlando partners with Bike Month 2013

As seen on AdvocateDaily.com

Toronto critical injury lawyer Rikin Morzaria kicked off Bike Month 2013 this week, joining hundreds of cyclists in riding his bike to work and speaking on behalf of Bike Month lead partner McLeish Orlando at Nathan Phillips Square.

Morzaria, a partner at McLeish Orlando, rides his bike to work every day and spoke to the crowd about safe cycling and encouraging businesses to be smart commuters.

“As a law firm that represents seriously injured people, we often encounter cyclists who have been injured in road collisions,” Morzaria said during the kick-off. “Because we see the impact of these injuries up close, we feel that we have a responsibility to promote safe cycling.  Some of this involves advocating for safe solutions.  For example, Patrick Brown, was instrumental in prompting a coroner’s review of cycling safety.  We are also strong supporters of cycling advocacy organizations such as Cycle Toronto.

“We also believe that cycling is safer when more people are using it as a method of transportation,” he said.  ”This leads to greater awareness of cyclists by motorists, and to reduced hostility.

“We feel that we need to lead by example by encouraging our own employees to cycle to work,” Morzaria told the gathering.  ”We have taken some concrete steps to make this more practical and appealing.  For example, we have made our workplace more cycle friendly by providing secure bike parking and including shower facilities in our retrofitted office space.  We have also regularly participated in cycling events, and purchased memberships to Cycle Toronto for our employees.

“Perhaps most importantly, we lead by example; many of our lawyers, including several partners, regularly commute to work by bicycle.  ‘Helmet head’ won’t make you so self-conscious when you see your boss sporting it,” he said.

The firm also participate in a “Helmets on Kids” program every year, purchasing and handing out approximately 500 helmets each year to children who wouldn’t otherwise have them.

“I’m excited to be part of Bike Month, because I love cycling – I’ve cycled year-round as a commuter for over a decade –  and because I want to be part of the movement that makes cycling accessible to others who haven’t yet started using bikes as a method of transportation,” said Morzaria.

For more information or to see this month’s calendar of biking events, visit McLeish Orlando’s  website or www.bikemonth2013.ca

Decision could lead to increase in unnecessary claims

As seen on AdvocateDaily.com – April 5, 2013

Ontario’s personal injury bar is concerned that a recent Court of Appeal decision could lead to an increase in unnecessary claims against underinsured insurers, Toronto critical injury lawyers Rikin Morzaria and John McLeish write in Lawyers Weekly. Read Lawyers Weekly

In Roque v. Pilot Insurance Co. [2012], the court held that a plaintiff ’s limitation period against an underinsured insurer begins to run when the plaintiff has enough evidence to give him a “reasonable chance” of persuading a judge that his claims would exceed the minimum limits of $200,000, the article says.

“This is a departure from some previous cases — Hampton v. Traders General Insurance Co. [1996] O.J. No. 41, most notably — that held that the limitation period only begins to run from the time when the plaintiff knows that the available insurance coverage under a defendant’s policy is less than that available under his or her own coverage. While the language of OPCF 44 endorsement in question — the “family protection” endorsement that extends to the policyholder the same rights provided to third parties —  arguably left the appeal court little choice, the resulting situation cries out for legislative intervention,” explain Morzaria and McLeish, partners with McLeish Orlando LLP.

Continue reading