Toronto
416.860.0003
Bar Admission:
2008
Adam has acted on a range of civil motions, trials, appeals, and mediations for a broad range of clients involving many aspects of business and insurance litigation, including construction liens, corporate oppression, and breach of trust. His practice at McCague Borlack is primarily focused on subrogation matters involving all types of losses, including fires, floods, theft, negligent construction, and product and equipment defects. He has spent his entire legal career focused on plaintiff-side litigation.
Prior to starting with McCague Borlack LLP in 2012, Adam worked at a boutique litigation firm in Toronto, where he gained substantial experience appearing before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, as well as various administrative tribunals in Ontario. Adam is focused on providing clients with sound and reasoned advice and effective advocacy.
Working towards a personal goal, Adam is learning American Sign Language and when in need of some downtime, his interests vary greatly from catching up with the latest vid-games to reading up on 19th-century social theory.
In the recent decision of Raubvogel et al v. The City of Vaughan et al (“Raubvogel”), the Ontario Superior Court outlines the distinction between a municipality's policy and operational decisions. Specifically, the City of Vaughan (“the City”) argued that it did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs on the basis that its decision not to replace the incident water main was an issue of policy. Accordingly, the City argued that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by section 450 of the Municipal Act (“the Act”). However, counsel for the plaintiffs, Adam Grant, a partner at McCague Borlack LLP, was successful in demonstrating that such a failure in these circumstances was an operational decision as there was “no apparent reason” for the failure to replace the water main.
The conference will feature a distinguished slate of industry professionals who will provide their insight and expertise in the areas of Auto, General, Management, Product Liability, Property, Subro Fundamentals, and Workers’ Compensation.
Subrogated claims require a distinct approach from defense cases; not only is the onus on the plaintiff to move the case forward, but it is also in their direct financial interest to do so. The faster a case can move along, the faster it can be settled or otherwise resolved. However, pushing a matter relentlessly through the typical litigation steps can miss important opportunities to potentially resolve a claim. Because of this, managing subrogation matters involves a tempered balance of aggressive pursuit of recovery and cooperation with counsel to make it easier for the defendants to settle.
As we have developed greater and more rapid business relationships across greater distances, there has inevitably come with this trend a larger emphasis on cross-jurisdictional litigation. While Canadian common law is fairly uniform in its basic components, there are notable elements that have slight, yet potentially critical, differences. In this discussion, we will endeavour to identify some of the most important differences specifically between civil procedure in Ontario and British Columbia.
As a starting point, it is helpful to know that the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules are very similar to the Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario, so the vast majority of matters in BC will proceed in a similar fashion to the way they do in Ontario.