Toronto
416.860.0003
Bar Admission:
2011
Eric practices civil and commercial litigation with a focus on employment law, contract disputes, subrogation, debt recovery and collections, and construction lien matters. This has afforded Eric the opportunity to appear for clients before all levels of the Ontario Courts, including multiple appearances before the Ontario Court of Appeal, and has drafted materials for the Supreme Court of Canada.
Prior to joining McCague Borlack, Eric articled and worked for the Honourable Ed Morgan, prior to his appointment to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. He also worked as an associate at a boutique Toronto litigation firm where he acted for clients in a broad range of matters, developing skills in both oral/written advocacy as well as negotiating settlements in complex cases. Eric is a co-chair of the firm's Debt Recovery and Collections practice area.
Keeping the best interests of his clients in mind, Eric prioritizes finding the most practical and efficient resolution to every matter. For this reason, Eric works closely with clients to determine when it is appropriate to fight an issue in Court and when to work with the other side to find a mutually agreeable alternative.
A former Canadian Comedy Award nominee, Eric still writes and produces comedy around Toronto to maintain his sense of humour and stay quick on his feet. He also enjoys exploring Toronto's new and unique restaurants, or just hanging out at home with his wife, and dog Ringo.
In the construction industry, where a tangled web of inter-related contracts can be the norm, questions often arise as to whether a non-party seeking to avail themselves of benefits in one contract is also subject to its various restrictive covenants. In the Husky case discussed below, the ABKB clarified that parties take the good and they take the bad.
This past month, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision of Demme v. Healthcare Insurance Reciprocal of Canada (HIROC) 2022 ONCA 503, which considered a commercial liability insurer's duty to defend in actions based on the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. Justice Brown ultimately found that the insurer had a right to deny coverage to an employee of the insured under its policy.
You're walking to grab a bite to eat from your favourite sushi place down the street. It's a warm, clear night and you pass the local businesses which give your neighbourhood its sense of character. An organic coffee shop. A marijuana dispensary. A vintage bookstore. Another dispensary. Maybe the grocer has those strawberries you like. Yeah, that sounds good. Yet another dispensary. A fourth dispensary. A fifth dispensary – this one with a clever name. Were there always this many?