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

Walton v. Economical Insurance Company 2023 ONLAT 21-007873/AABS

Date of Decision: May 03, 2023

Case Summary:
The claimant was involved in a head on motor vehicle collision on June 29, 2017. He was 25-years-old at the time of the accident. He sought a CAT determination under Criterion 8 and an 8-day video conference hearing was held in October of 2022, before Adjudicator Harry Adamidis. Adjudicator Adamidis found that the claimant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as defined by the SABS. 

Adjudicator Adamidis agreed with the respondent that the claimant does not suffer from a marked impairment in activities of daily living or social functioning. Regarding activities of daily living, the claimant’s own testimony was that he could shower, brush his teeth, and put on clean clothes “but not all the time.” The claimant was consistent with his exercise routines and continued to participate in a significant level of treatment. While Adjudicator Adamidis accepted a lack of motivation leading to decreased functional ability, he found that this frequency of task completion was not compatible with a significant impediment of useful function but rather with some continued useful functioning (a moderate impairment). 

Moreover, Adjudicator Adamidis considered the claimant’s performance at the hearing itself, which Adjudicator Adamidis termed a “highly stressful situation.”  The claimant’s ability to communicate appeared to be unimpeded over three days of testimony. 

Adjudicator Adamidis rejected the claimant’s argument that while he can do many activities, he is catastrophically impaired as he cannot engage in those activities without the use of drugs or alcohol. Adjudicator Adamidis agreed with the respondent and drew an adverse inference from the claimant’s failure to provide prescription summaries past 2019. Accordingly, Adjudicator Adamidis did not accept the claimant’s testimony that he needed to be medicated to complete his activities of daily living. 

The claimant also argued that while he still drives to do errands for his mother and grandmother this is because they do not understand his psychological impediments and he does not want to upset them. Adjudicator Adamidis found that “the pressure the applicant feels from his mother and grandmother does not sufficiently explain his functional ability to accommodate normal, routine requests for driving. It is more likely that his ability to accommodate these requests demonstrates proficiency in the activities of daily living.” An ability to drive in this manner is again consistent with a moderate, not marked, impairment in activities of daily living. 

Regarding social functioning, Adjudicator Adamidis found that although the claimant was frustrated with the people in his life, he was able to conduct himself accordingly. Adjudicator Adamidis also found it significant that the claimant had commenced and maintained a romantic relationship following the accident. While Adjudicator Adamidis accepted that the claimant’s social circle was now limited to his girlfriend and family, given the way he was able to interact with these people, this was not compatible with a significant impediment to useful functioning.  

Also noteworthy in this case is the fact that the claimant was receiving ongoing post-104 IRBs after an insurance examination by a psychologist found that he was unable to return to any work. Despite this fact, Adjudicator Adamidis did not find that the claimant is catastrophically impaired.  


 

Please click the pdf icon to view the complete case synopsis:

See all cases