Z uber & Company LLP specializes exclusively in civil litigation, primarily in the areas of property and casualty insurance law in addition to personal injury litigation.
From the firm's inception in February 1999 with just a handful of staff, we have grown to over 65 people while retaining an informal, boutique-style atmosphere.
Our client base ranges from private individuals to major insurance companies situated across North America. We have extensive experience conducting successful mediations and arbitrations as well as trials and appeals. We are listed in Best's Directories of Recommended Insurance Attorneys.
Meet the Lawyers
Jennifer S. Barnes
James G. Norton
Karim N. Hirani
Great work Glen Bushi and team who were able to achieve a favorable result for our client at the License Appeal Tribunal in Ahmed v. BelairDirect, 2023 ONLAT 21-006910/AABS.
The issues in dispute were as follows:
- Are the Applicant’s injuries predominantly minor as defined in s.3 of the Schedule and therefore subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 limit?
- Is the Applicant entitled to a non-earner benefit of $185.00 per week from April 29, 2019 to April 1, 2021?
- Is the Applicant entitled to the cost of a chronic pain assessment in the amount of $2,200.00 and a psychological assessment in the amount of $2,179.22?
- Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
The LAT concluded that based on the medical record available to it and the evidence given by the Applicant during his Examination in Chief and Cross-examination, the Applicant’s injuries were predominantly minor in nature. Further, the LAT concluded that the Applicant was not entitled to non-earner benefits as he had failed to show that “he suffers from a complete inability to carry on a normal life within 104 weeks of the accident”. The LAT further concluded that the Applicant is not entitled to the cost of the examinations. To read the full decision, please click on the link below.
This appeal involved a jurisdictional issue with respect to a water taxi accident in Venice, Italy. The issue in this appeal was whether the fourth presumptive connecting factor in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, a contract connected with the dispute was made in the province, gave the Ontario Superior Court of Justice jurisdiction over the appellants (3 Italian companies) with respect to the action commenced by the respondents. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and stayed the action against the appellants. The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the fourth presumptive connecting factor was not established and further found that in the alternative the appellants had rebutted the presumption. This is a significant decision in the context of jurisdictional claims. At paragraph 44 the Court noted that “If the decision of the motion judge were to be upheld, it would have sweeping implications. It would mean that any person who books a trip through a credit card company that provides travel services and carries on business in Ontario would, through that fact alone, extend the jurisdiction of this province’s courts to anyone who may subsequently become involved in those travel arrangements, regardless of where in the world that involvement occurs. In my view, that result would constitute the very type of jurisdictional overreach that the decision in Van Breda was cautioning against.”
To read the full decision, please click on the link below.
A great success. This appeal is brought by the Appellants (Plaintiffs) as a result of a motion Judge’s refusal to grant leave to bring a motion to include punitive damages in the Plaintiffs’ claim based on presumed prejudice that could not be compensated by an award of costs. The matter was set down for trial 4 years prior by the Appellants (Plaintiffs,) and certified the matter was ready for trial during two previous pre-trials. Just weeks prior the scheduled 32 day trial, the Appellants brought a motion to amend the claim to increase the amount of damages and include punitive damages. The motion judge allowed the increased damages but refused the Appellants (Plaintiffs) requests related to punitive damages resulting in this appeal. The Appellants appealed on the grounds that the motion judge erred in law as there was neither prejudice nor presumed prejudice causally related or flowing from the proposed amendment that was non-compensable, as any delay or extra work that would result from the amendment were matters compensable in costs. No explanation for the delay in bringing the motion was provided by the Appellants (Plaintiffs). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.