416.860.0003
Bar Admission:
1978
Since being called to the Bar in 1978, Paul has established an extensive property, casualty, and special risks practice acting primarily for the insurance industry. Paul has built his reputation via the results he achieves on complex matters involving national and international issues with substantial quantum at risk.
Paul is regularly retained by large corporations on their self-insured retention programs and in all forms of coverage disputes, including excess, umbrella, and reinsurance issues.
Paul’s practice initially involved litigation and trial advocacy and more recently has expanded to include all forms of alternative dispute resolution. He also frequently acts for clients on coroner’s inquests and at hearings involving regulatory and enforcement proceedings. Additionally, Paul has experienced considerable success in the pursuit of major subrogated claims, and he is considered a pioneer in the defence of class action lawsuits in the Province of Ontario.
Lexpert, a Canadian legal publication and directory, lists Paul as a repeatedly recommended Commercial Insurance Litigation lawyer and in 2012, Paul was added to the Best Lawyers listing in the area of Personal Injury Litigation.
Paul was a principal founding member of Canadian Litigation Counsel (“CLC”), a national affiliation of independent law firms providing all forms of litigation services to the insurance industry and other public and private institutions.
First published in Advocates Quarterly. A municipality’s statutory duty to keep its roads and sidewalks in repair has long given rise to a cause of action to persons injured as a result of the breach of that duty.
First published in the Advocates Quarterly. An overview of the major principles relating to duties of care, with a focus on whether and when the duty is owed by a public body.
On a practical level, causation simply means that the current condition or circumstances would be different had an act or omission not occurred. The alteration in circumstances can be positive, negative, or just a maintenance of the status quo. The critical matter is that the situation would not be what it is had there been no act or omission; otherwise, the act or omission cannot be said to have had any effect on the current situation. The “but for” test is merely another way of expressing this concept of change or difference in the current situation that would not otherwise have been present.