About the Firm

Toronto Office

Ottawa Office

Forget Smith brings together an experienced team of lawyers who exemplify the highest standards in the industry, delivering expert, responsible legal advice and client-oriented, technologically sophisticated services.


With offices in Toronto and Ottawa, Forget Smith provides bilingual advice and services throughout Ontario, including the Greater Toronto Area, the National Capital Region, Eastern Ontario, Southwestern Ontario and Northern Ontario.

Our practice focuses on all aspects of advocacy on behalf of insurers, including statutory accident benefits claims, commercial liability claims, road liability claims, motor vehicle litigation, personal injury and disability litigation, “slips and falls”, subrogated claims, coverage disputes, professional liability claims, homeowners’ property and liability claims, regulatory negligence, administrative law, and construction matters. 

Our team of lawyers have decades of collective experience, with over 75 trials, hundreds of reported decisions, and countless successful settlements to their credit.  Our lawyers also have extensive trial and appellate court experience, with regular attendances before the Superior Court, the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Financial Services Commission, and other tribunals.  

Although we are proud of our record in court, we recognize that early and cost-effective resolution of cases may require innovative strategies to avoid and manage disputes.  Accordingly, our lawyers have particular expertise with a full range of alternative dispute resolution options, including negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and other customized ADR solutions.

By offering cost-management strategies without compromising our superior quality of service, we deliver value to our clients both in terms of results and cost-effectiveness.  In this way, every client file is handled not only with top-tier expertise but with a focus on the particular needs of the case, whether the client is locally based or a multi-national organization. 



Recent Blogs

Recent Cases

Garvey v. Economical Insurance Company, 2023 ONLAT 21-012435/AABS Decision

Date of Decision: March 28, 2023

Case Summary:
The claimant was involved in a relatively minor accident on August 23, 2018.

This is the claimant’s second application to the LAT. Previously a 5-day hearing was held in January 2022 to determine whether she was entitled to pre- and post- 104-week IRB. Adjudicator Neilson’s decision released on August 11, 2022, held that the claimant was entitled to pre-104 IRB but that she had failed to prove that she was entitled to post-104-week IRB.

The claimant’s current LAT application seeks CAT determination under Criterion 8 and a 7-day hearing was held in March 2023 before Adjudicator Clive Forbes. Ultimately, Adjudicator Forbes found that the claimant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as defined by the SABS. 

In analyzing the four areas of function under Criterion 8, Adjudicator Forbes agreed with the respondent and found that most of the claimant’s impairments existed before the accident. Adjudicator Forbes noted that the claimant failed to accurately capture and describe both her pre- and post- accident function, based on the totality of the medical evidence available. Adjudicator Forbes remarked that not much had changed with the claimant’s function post-accident. Adjudicator Forbes relied on the claimant’s ODSP forms completed by her family physician within 1 year pre-accident which described her suffering from significant psychiatric impairments including social isolation, requiring support and supervision with housekeeping, groceries, and intellectual activities. With regards to post-accident level of function, Adjudicator Forbes noted that the claimant was relatively functional post-accident including being responsible for meal preparation, taking her dogs out 5-6 times a day for brief walks and managing her prescription medication.

Adjudicator Forbes assigned very little weight to the claimant’s expert, Dr. Bobbi Ross, agreeing with our client that her evaluation and assessment under Criterion 8 was fundamentally flawed. He held Dr. Ross did not properly address the claimant’s impairments under Criterion 8 (or Chapter 14 of the AMA) and that Dr. Ross was wrong when she “lumped” all of the claimant’s impairments together and rated them all under Criterion 8 despite the impairments not being mental disorders. 

 

See all cases