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

Lanzon v. Economical Insurance Company, 2023 ONLAT 20-005424/AABS

Date of Decision: May 16, 2023

Case Summary:
The claimant was involved in a relatively minor accident on October 4, 2012.

The applicant applied for CAT determination under Criterion 8, and the hearing proceeded over 3 days before Adjudicator Michael Beauchesne. Ultimately, Adjudicator Beauchesne found that the claimant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as defined by the SABS. 

The scope of the issues was narrow. The dispute proceeded under the pre-2016 Schedule, which only requires an applicant to prove the accident caused one Class 4 Marked Impairment. The applicant relied on the opinions of Dr. Lisa Becker (physiatrist) and Dr. Harold Becker (family physician), which found a single Class 4 Impairment in the domain of adaptation to work and work-like settings. Neither Dr. Becker was called to testify at the hearing. 

In his analysis, Adjudicator Beauchesne was unable to place any weight on the applicant’s CAT opinion. In doing so, he applied the requirement under s.45(2)1 of the Schedule, which provides that the determination of catastrophic impairment shall be conducted only by a physician. Adjudicator Beauchesne found there was no ambiguity in what the section required, and the applicant’s physicians had: “…abdicated their responsibility and instead depended on their assistants to conduct the determination that only they, as physicians, are eligible to do under the Schedule.” It was Dr. Davidson, a neuropsychologist, who conducted the assessment of catastrophic impairment. The physicians provided no analysis in the report that pertained to the Criterion 8 findings. Adjudicator Beauchesne highlighted “...the absence of independent thought, reasoning, or analysis”, and accordingly, the applicant’s CAT opinions were given no weight. 

In absence of a compelling medical basis, the testimony of the applicant and his partner were insufficient to meet the burden of proof for catastrophic impairment as defined by the Schedule.

 

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

See all cases