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

Temple v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 ONLAT 21-005510/AABS-PI

Date of Decision: June 05, 2023

Case Summary:

The claimant was involved in an automobile accident on September 12, 2018.

The preliminary issue is dispute was whether the applicant was barred, pursuant to s. 55(1)3 of the Schedule, from proceeding with her application since she failed to provide information to the respondent in accordance with s. 46.2 and s. 46.3 of the Schedule. Adjudicator Kaur found that the applicant was indeed barred from proceeding with her application for Attendant Care Benefit as she had not complied with s. 46.2 and s. 46.3. 

Under s. 46.2, an insurer may request any information from a provider that the insurer requires, acting reasonably, to determine its liability for payment. In this case, the provider was requested for a statutory declaration as it relates to the invoice and the particulars for goods and services provided. 

Under s. 46.3(1), an insurer may also request from the insured person (1) confirmation in writing that the goods and services were provided; and (2) a statutory declaration as to the circumstances that gave rise to the invoice. Further, s. 46.3(2) requires the insured person to provide the information requested within 10 business days after receiving the request.    

Additionally, s. 55(1) bars the insured person from applying to the Tribunal if the request made under s. 46.2(1) is not complied with by the service provider in whole or in part.  

In her analysis, Adjudicator Kaur noted that the respondent had made multiple requests for the particulars pertaining to the invoices for the attendant care as well as a statutory declaration from the applicant and the service provider. Moreover, the applicant agreed to provide the particulars when the parties attended the case conference and has failed to do so. The respondent required this information in order to determine its liability for the amount payable under the invoices because the provider has not complied with the request in whole or in part. 

Adjudicator Kaur further noted that the invoices that were provided by the service provider do not provide a breakdown of the services or amount of time that was spent. Additionally, the applicant returned an incomplete statutory declaration. She did not provide any of the information that was requested and nor did she provide an explanation as to why she did not fill out the statutory declaration. 

Ultimately, the application was dismissed at the preliminary hearing, and the applicant was barred from proceeding with the application for attendant care benefit. 


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

See all cases