What do you do when you’ve been impacted by this storm, or another storm or property damage claim like it?

First and foremost, we’re sorry. It’s really hard dealing with property damage claims. But, look at the bright side. Hopefully, nobody was hurt and the property which was damaged can be repaired. We know that the repair job is a major headache, but things could be worse. The repairs (or replacement), will get done, one way or another. It just takes time.

Here are a few tips on what to do after you’ve experienced property damage:

1. Take photos/videos of the source of the damage, and of the damage/destruction right away. This is very important which is why it’s #1 on this list. The insurance company will want to see this so that they authenticate your claim. The insurance company wants to know that you aren’t trying to pull a fast one on them. They also want to know that the damages are covered under your policy of insurance. Some policies will cover claims for rain damage, but NOT for sewer overflow. This means that if the water in your house is coming from a broken window or skylight, then it will be covered under the policy. But, if the water in your house is coming from underground (like a sewer or sump pump that’s been backlogged), then it might not be covered under your policy unless a specific rider has been purchased for this sort of coverage. The photos and video of the source of the damage will help the insurer understand where the problem is coming from, and whether or not it will be covered under the policy.
2. Don’t wait to report your claim to the insurance company. Do this right away. Waiting will hurt your claim. You are expected to do so almost immediately. If you wait to report your claim, there had better be a good reason for this. There isn’t really any excuse for waiting to report claims anymore given that most insurers offer online reporting, or they have an app on your phone which can instantaneously make a claim. The app will be connected to your phone, and you can easily upload the photos/video of the damage which you shot in step #1 above. This makes things very easy. It’s also another example of how people who don’t have a smartphone; or who are tech illiterate will have greater problems functioning in 2026; than they would have in 1986. If you aren’t keeping up with the tech, then the world will leave you behind. But that’s a story for another day.
3. Get your own quote, from your own contractor(s) as soon as possible. Don’t rely on the insurance company and their contractor(s) for a quote. The insurance company will send over a remediation team and an adjuster to inspect the damage. But, you shouldn’t wait to get a quote from the insurance company’s team of experts. Do you own due diligence and get some quotes from people who aren’t associated with the insurance company. If you have a person who your trust, reach out to them. If you have a preferred contractor who you have worked with before, or who has a good reputation in your community, don’t hesitate to reach out to them. The reason for this is at some point, the work will need to get done. If the claim is approved, the insurance company will offer you one of three options:

a) The insurer’s contractor will do the work; and will get paid directly by the insurer for an agreed upon amount

b) Your contractor will do the work; and will get paid directly by the insurer for an agreed upon amount

c) The insurer will send you a lump sum of cash for an agreed upon amount; and you will get the repairs done with the cash from the settlement

It’s always nice to have a trusted contractor do the work so that you property gets repaired by someone you know; rather than a stranger picked by the insurance company.

4. The claims process is slow, so be patient and don’t panic. Claims take time to open, handle and process. This is just the nature of the business. Just because your claim is taking time to process, doesn’t mean that it’s being denied, so it’s best not to panic. If the adjuster handling your claim isn’t being responsive to your queries, don’t be afraid to reach out to that adjuster’s manager either to get the answers you need.

5. The insurance company will be nice, but just because they’re acting nice doesn’t mean that they’re on your side. Do you think that insurance companies are in the business of handing out checks and approving each and every claim that comes their way? The insurance company makes more money not paying a claim, than by paying out each claim which lands on their desk. The insurer will pay out on a meritorious claim, but their definition of meritorious might not be the same thing as your definition of meritorious. You might have many a disagreement with them in terms of what’s covered under the policy, and what’s not. Sometimes, the difference between what’s covered, and what’s not boils down to a word or two. This can be very frustrating for claimants, or people who are new to how insurance and how the law works. I can tell you from years of experience that these policies are about splitting hairs and threading the eye of a needle. Words matter, and the definitions of those words matter as well.

1. Being great isn’t all about the law. It’s about all of the other things outside of the law. In 2026, AI can teach you a lot there is to know about the law; which is crazy when you think about it long and hard. But, people don’t want a robot as their personal injury lawyer. They’re hiring you, and putting their trust in you in some of their darkest times. While they will be impressed with your legal knowledge and experience; what really sets a great lawyer apart is his/her kindness, compassion, decency and above all else; authenticity. You can’t teach these qualities.
2. But being great is also about the law! There is no substitute for knowing your stuff. It’s a powerful legal weapon which clients, opposing lawyers and insurers will know and will respect. Knowing the law isn’t easy. It’s constantly changing, and very nuanced. The practice of the law is about splitting hairs, and it’s about those fine details which are time consuming to breakdown and analyze. There are no shortcuts, even with AI.

The biggest story in the NBA might be the sale of the Lakers for a whopping $12.5 Billion Dollars under the pressure from a Federal Investigation into the former Lakers owner regarding the financing of his team along with other ventures.

But for me, the biggest story of the NBA season has to do with the alleged salary cap circumvention of the Clippers and their superstar player, Kawhi Leonard; and how on earth the Toronto Raptors got involved into this hot mess.

The Toronto Raptors could have watched this all play out on the sidelines.

But they didn’t.

Instead, they walked in eyes wide open into the biggest pre-litigation sports mess I’ve seen unfold in the NBA in years. Instead of having no skin the game; the Toronto Raptors never wanting to feel left out; joined the party and signed up for a ride nobody should want. The Raptors are actors in the real time events unfolding in this investigation, in the hopes of landing Kawhi Leonard without any encumbrances on his freedom to play.

Unfortunately, “real time” when it comes to a investigation conducted by a law firm plays out very slowly.

Personal injury lawyers are accustomed to these slow turnarounds. People who work outside of the legal field all seem to think that lawyers and the law works quickly. This could not be further from the truth. The wheels of justice turn slowly. Personal injury cases take years to settle, or to be tried in Court.

Here are some noted similarities I’ve seen in the process of the Kawhi Leonard/Clippers salary cap investigation and personal injury cases in Ontario.

1. Both Kawhi Leonard’s investigation and personal injury cases are SLOW. I’ve discussed this above. If the parties could snap their fingers and achieve a resolution, or have an answer they would. It’s simply not how investigations or the law works. Fact finding, investigations, interviews and the legal process take time. In fact, they all take A LOT of time. It’s not sexy or exciting. It’s slow and methodical. Far from the excitement you would see in a legal drama unfold on television. When news happens, it’s far from dramatic (unlike on television). In the real world, there is rarely that “a ha” gotcha moment. There is rarely that smoking gun of irrefutable evidence. Everything is nuanced. Everything is grey. For every point, there is a counter point. If the parties don’t agree on the points, it’s up to a Judge, or an Arbitrator to decide right from wrong.

2. Nobody wants this to go to Court (Arbitration) because once it goes to Court, the parties loose all control. You hear in the news that the parties are trying to “negotiate” a settlement, or to work out a penalty. When you were in school, were you able to negotiate a punishment with the principal or your teacher if you got in trouble? No! As a child, was there any negotiation with your parents about a punishment for acting out? No! So, why is it in the NBA that an alleged wrongdoer gets to negotiate their punishment? That’s because both parties want to control the process. A negotiated settlement is better than rolling the dice at trial  (arbitration in this case).  Once the case goes before a trier of fact (Judge or Arbitrator), the parties have now complete control of the timeline and  punishment. They can no longer control the narrative for other owners, for the public, for sponsors, and for the fans. All of the parties want to control the narrative so that they can save face should something come out at the hearing which doesn’t look good for themselves or for the league as a whole. What happens if it comes out at the hearing that salary cap circumvention runs rampant all over the league, and this is just the first time that it’s come to light? How does the league handle that with the media and with fans? Does it not create another witch hunt and cause the fans to loose their trust with the league? What a bad look for the NBA. Personal injury cases are the same way. 99% of personal injury cases settle outside of Court. That way, the parties have certainty of the outcome. The parties know the result, and there is no appeal of a binding settlement. On the other hand, the parties can appeal a trial decision if they dispute the outcome. The appeal process adds additional time, uncertainty and costs to the process.

3. Only the parties and the lawyers really know what’s going on! In a personal injury case, often people around the Plaintiff or who are in the Plaintiff’s orbit seem to think they know the ins and outs of the Plaintiff’s case; and what’s best for the Plaintiff. Same as in the Kawhi Leonard investigation. Everyone seems to think they know what’s going on. One day, ESPN reports one thing; only the stand corrected by the NBA in a statement. In both instances, only the parties to the matter, and the lawyer know what’s happening and both are going to be tight lipped about the process and what’s happening behind the scenes. Litigation and this investigation are confidential and private matters. Once a matter is litigated, it becomes public. The NBA’s arbitration is private, but it would certainly be reported on in the news as what transpires at the arbitration would be widely be reported on. This is another reason why the parties are trying to work out a settlement behind the scenes. They could openly report a settlement on one thing; but keep other terms of the settlement confidential. This is another way that the parties can control the process and control the outcome. They can choose what to make public, and what to keep confidential.  The same thing happens in personal injury law! Some releases contain confidentiality clauses; while others don’t. 

In a car accident case, there are mechanisms which help a Plaintiff identify the wrongdoer; along with mechanisms for having a neutral third party (the police), investigate what happened at the scene of the accident.

After a car accident, the parties are supposed to exchange insurance information, and other personal information to help identify themselves after the accident happened. This is codified under the law. Section 200 of the Highway Traffic Act states:

200 (1) Where an accident occurs on a highway, every person in charge of a vehicle or street car that is directly or indirectly involved in the accident shall,

(a)  remain at or immediately return to the scene of the accident;

(b)  render all possible assistance; and

(c)  upon request, give in writing to anyone sustaining loss or injury or to any police officer or to any witness his or her name, address, driver’s licence number and jurisdiction of issuance, motor vehicle liability insurance policy insurer and policy number, name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle permit number. 

Section 320.16(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada states:

Failure to stop after accident

320.16 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance and who at the time of operating the conveyance knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the conveyance has been involved in an accident with a person or another conveyance and who fails, without reasonable excuse, to stop the conveyance, give their name and address and, if any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance.

Even if the wrongdoer flees the scene of the accident, a Plaintiff or another witness can identify the make, model, colour and the license plate number of the vehicle. That way, there are some clues to help track this person down. Eventually, with that information, the at fault party will be caught, and their identity will come to light. Even if the Plaintiff can’t identify the at fault party because they were using a stolen license plate and fled the accident scene never to be found again; the Plaintiff still has recourse with their own insurance company in order to claim compensation for their damages, pain and suffering.

The opposite is true in a dog bite case.

There is no legal requirement for a dog owner to remain at the scene of a dog bite, and exchange personal or insurance information with a Plaintiff. They can leave the scene of the dog attack and not get charged for leaving! There is no wording contained in the Dog Owner’s Liability Act requiring a Defendant dog owner to remain, offer assistance, or to identify themselves. They can take off from the scene of the dog attack without any identifiable repercussion under the Dog Owner’s Liability Act. Someone ought to look into this and change the act to include such a requirement. It would be a rather simple amendment and it wouldn’t be very controversial given that similar laws are already in place under different (albeit unrelated) statues.

This is why it’s very important for a victim of a dog bite, or dog attack to get the name and contact information of the dog owner. Sometimes, the dog owner won’t be forthcoming with this information. Taking a photo of the person, their car, their license plate, or finding out where they live is a great starting point. Some Plaintiffs follow the person home so that they know where they live. Once you have that information, it can be relayed over to the local Animal Control Department or Public Health so that they can complete an investigation. Imagine approaching Animal Control or Public Health when you don’t have any identifying information for the dog owner. Where would they begin their investigation, and how would they find out the identity of the dog, or the dog owner? Conducting such an investigation blind, and without a good starting is a very difficult task. Contrary to popular belief, there aren’t active or functioning cameras everywhere which will identify the name and address of a dog owner like you would see in the movies. If there is any video evidence, it’s usually grainy, or not pointed at the right place. It’s rare that it’s in high definition quality to be of any serviceable use (if it exists at all). My point in saying this is that you cannot operate like cameras pick up your every move and will be able to magically track down the at fault party. The best way to secure the identity and contact information of the at fault party is doing so right there are the scene of the dog attack itself. Because if you don’t, that person might be gone forever. And once they’re gone, they’re gone and neither you, nor your lawyer can sue an unidentified party in a dog attack case. Unlike a car accident case, there’s no liability insurance for being involved in a dog attack with an unknown party which will cover you for your damages, pain and suffering.

So, what’s my point in all of this?

It’s important for a victim of a dog attack to be mindful, and to be proactive at the scene of the dog attack. If you let the dog owner leave the scene of the dog attack without getting their identifying information, you’re letting them get away and then you might be without recourse because you’re chasing a ghost. It’s important not to assume that the police will magically appear at the scene of the dog attack and compel the dog owner to give a statement and provide their information to you. The police, very rarely, are called upon to investigate dog attacks. These are handled by Municipal Bi-Law Officers and by Public Health, who aren’t expected to come out to the scene like a police officer, or a fire fighter. If a Plaintiff has the name and contact information of the dog owner, it can be shared with Bi-Law Officials or Public Health during the course of their investigation which will likely take place long after the dog attack has taken place.

Slow Courts, or a slow march towards a Plaintiff’s day in Court is the equivalent to a Plaintiff not receiving any justice at all.

Why do personal injury cases take a back seat to other cases in Ontario Courts?

It’s not like the Defendant at fault driver will be punished for having caused a car accident in civil court? The Defendant at fault driver is not going to jail for having caused a car accident. The Judge won’t order “eye for an eye” justice like you might have seen in ancient times; not that we are advocating for a return to such justice. Nor will the Judge order that the at fault Defendant driver perform tasks for the injured Plaintiff to make him/her  whole (like the Defendant serve as the Plaintiff’s butler for a period of time). These sort of remedies are unheard of in Canadian Courts.

Instead, the only thing which a Judge can award in a personal injury case is money. That’s it. The money is intended to make the Plaintiff whole for the Plaintiff’s damages, and to compensate the Plaintiff for their losses.

Money can wait.  Civil Courts, where personal injury cases are decided take a back seat to the criminal justice system, and to the family law system. The reason for this is because both criminal law and family law have very real impact on the rights of people. A person charged with a serious criminal offence losses many of their freedoms when they are in jail, or waiting for their trial in custody. Families are torn apart, and the custody of children is decided in Family Courts. It’s for these reasons that you can see why money waits and personal injury cases take a back seat to criminal cases and  family cases. In fact, if you attend at a small courthouse, you will see that a lone Judge might hear all sorts of matters ranging from criminal cases, family cases, estates cases, business cases, and personal injury cases. The cases which are called first are the criminal cases, followed by the family cases, followed by everything else (which usually involve money). It’s a point that’s driven home in Ontario’s judicial system that money waits on other matters.

Why does delay in a personal injury case even matter?

It matters a lot!

Let’s start with the basic memory of all of the actors and witnesses in a case. The memories of the parties and the witnesses will be more fresh closer to the date of the accident. The longer the delay, the greater chance that memories get lost, fogged, or altogether altered due to the passage of time. It’s strange because people remember things a certain way, but given time, those very same memories tend to fade or change with the passage of time. The evidence of the parties and witnesses can make or break a case.

From a financial and  economic perspective, a Plaintiff getting a result (or money) today, is worth exponentially more than getting that same result a few years down the road. Pre Judgement and Post Judgment interest is supposed to lessen the blow of the lost opportunity of getting a judgment today vs. getting a judgment a year down the road. Unfortunately, pre judgment and post judgment interest are not keeping up with the rising cost of living and rising inflation. $100,000 a year ago, is more valuable than $100,000 today, and so on and so forth.  The numbers and judgments are simply not keeping up with those inflationary rates and the cost of living.

This is particularly noticeable in car accident cases, here there is an statutory deductible which goes up each year! In 2026 motor vehicle accident cases:

I suppose with a heartfelt “Thank You” from Raptor Fans coast to coast. But, this thank you is just for your work in 2018/2019 with the Raptors. That’s it.

Thank you for reluctantly coming to Toronto and doing your job. When you were traded here from San Antonio in 2018, you didn’t complain (or at least publicly complain).

We knew Toronto wasn’t your first choice, or your second choice, or your tenth choice for that matter.

But, as a true professional, you put your head down, got to work, and performed at the highest level. Your on court professionalism was exceptional. This is remarkable, because it could have gone pear shaped rather quickly. But, you didn’t let it get to that. Instead, you led the greatest single Toronto Raptor season of all time cumulating with an NBA Championship, a Finals MVP, a First Team All NBA Selection; and you were by the time the season ended the consensus best basketball player on then planet…and you were a Raptor!!!  I can’t think of another Toronto pro sports athlete who had a high as great as the one you ended on in 2019.

And then you left for Los Angeles.

While it was sad to see you go, we accepted it. You owed Toronto nothing. You had delivered for Toronto as a true professional and now it was time for you to go. You had a choice as a free agent to work and live where you wanted, and you chose to be close to home and your family in California. You earned that right. No hard feelings.

But fast forward to 2026. You’ve been a Los Angeles Clipper for 7 years with nothing to show for it. Just 3 Playoff Series wins in 7 years, having never advanced beyond round 2. You’ve played in 59.7% of regular season Clipper games. That means that fans don’t get to see you play 40% of the time (which is a lot when you think about it). You’ve missed 15 playoff games in 7 years. Yikes!

Reporting suggests that your “team” made demands outside of the collective bargaining agreement in order to sign, and to re-sign NBA contracts.

These demands included ownership of teams, along with non-participation or no show sponsorship deals. Money for Nothing as they say in Dire Straits.

The Raptors weren’t willing to play ball. But, reporting suggests that another team might have been willing to grease your wheels. The reporting cut so deep that the NBA has needed to launch an investigation into some of your off court dealings. One of those deals is a sponsorship deal with Aspire, whose officers were convicted of fraud and sentenced to jail. Another deal might be with an ownership stake in a second tier soccer club out of Rhode Island? Is this a case where you couldn’t get an ownership stake with the Toronto Maple Leafs, or Los Angeles Clippers, so somehow, someway, your employers hooked you up with an ownership of a second tier soccer team in Rhode Island? Normally, when high profile athletes (like Kawhi Leonard) get some sort of ownership stake in a pro sports team, it’s heavily publicized because the publicity that it generates is good for business. Yet, you do the opposite. Why is it that your ownership stake is kept super secretive? Is it because Kawhi is such a private individual; or is it because there’s something nefarious afoot? I suspect the latter.

Kawhi Leonard is embroiled in off court scandal. Yet, the Toronto Raptors announce that they are (or have paused on) trading for him despite all of this controversy. But why?

Is it because the Raptors are trading for a distressed asset in Kawhi Leonard and getting a good deal for the player?

Nope!

In fact, it’s the opposite. The Raptors are paying market value, or greater than market value for a toxic asset who has missed 40% of regular season games along with 15 playoff games over the past 7 years!

Is it because Kawhi Leonard is a beacon for the Toronto community and a beloved player?

Not really. Kawhi is beloved in Toronto for what he did over the course of the 2018/2019 season. Beyond that, he has a very reserved and quiet public persona. He left Toronto in 2019 for greener pastures in California. Toronto was never his first choice when he came here in 2018; and was not his first choice when he had the choice to stay at the end of the 2019 championship season. The guy didn’t even stay around to defend his championship crown. He got out as quickly as he could.

So why the quick return to Toronto?

Something smells fishy. The dots aren’t adding up.

The Toronto Raptors have traded for a toxic asset. It’s an asset whose off court business dealings are under such great scrutiny and investigation by the NBA and its lawyers. Since the investigation began, Kawhi Leonard parted ways with his trusted business advisor and Uncle, Dennis Robertson. He’s also parted ways with his agent and signed with a new agency.

If Kawhi is punished, how will it impact the Raptors?

Will the punishment be appealed and will Kawhi be allowed to play basketball in the interim appeal period? How long would the punishment last?

But, from a Raptor perspective, why would you make a deal for this guy knowing that you’re in a holding pattern until the investigation and the punishment are completed? What happens if the punishment is for the majority of the season and the player can’t get up to speed fast enough to help the team perform? This is certainly not what you expected when you first made the trade for Kawhi. In fact, it’s a silly trade to begin with. You’ve traded for a grenade set to explode at any moment, and you have no control over the explosion radius. It has a direct impact on the player composition of your team, along with the performance of your team as well. If you have a max player who us sidelined for most of the season, that’s a huge hit to your salary cap. Your asking mid level players and rookies to fill the stats of a super star max player which isn’t fair nor realistic. What are you saying to fans and to sponsors who are investing their time and money into the team? Any objective investor would take a step back and renegotiate this deal, or get out of it completely given the risk involved. And the reward of having an aging 37 year old injury prone all star does not outweigh the risk of the transaction itself of the bad publicity which it’s bringing. The Raptors have done nothing wrong, but they’re guilty by association. Not the best example for the young children they’re hoping to inspire.

Here are some of the benefits which used to exist under a standard car insurance policy before July 1st 2026, but were eliminated thereafter:

$185/week Non Earner Benefit x 104 weeks = $19,240 eliminated under standard policy

$400/week Income Replacement Benefit x 104 weeks = $41,600 eliminated under standard police

$3,000/month x 24 months = $72,000 eliminated under standard policy

Cost of Funeral = $6,000 Max Benefit eliminated under standard policy

Death Coverage for Surviving Spouse = $25,000 eliminated under standard policy

Death Coverage for Dependant Children = $10,000 per child eliminated under standard policy

These are some serious savings for Ontario Car Insurance Companies! These benefits were standard under a run of the mill car insurance policy. These benefits were available to people who didn’t have their own car insurance, but who were involved in car accidents themselves. Think of people like:

• Pedestrians who were hit by a car through no fault of their own
• Seat Belted Passengers who were involved in a car accident through no fault of their own
• Cyclists who were hit by a car through no fault of their own

Before July 1st, 2026, all of the benefits detailed above were available to these people, whether or not they had car insurance, or not, under a standard auto policy.

After July 1, 2026, all of these benefits were stripped away from all Ontarians under a standard car insurance policy. If you want these benefits available to you, a person needs to pay extra for them. If a person doesn’t drive, or have access to a car, then these benefits won’t be available at all (unless they’re identified as a dependent or additional party on someone else’s car insurance policy). Odds are a cyclist who doesn’t have a driver’s license won’t have access to these benefits at all because they won’t have the opportunity to by this sort of coverage.

Because these benefits were stripped from a standard car insurance policy, it would make sense that the cost of insurance premiums would go done sharply. But alas, they haven’t. Don’t ask me. How about you check your car insurance premiums and ask yourself whether or not your premiums have even decreased over the past year, 3, years, or 5 year period. In that same period of time, while your premiums have likely increased, the benefits available to you under the same policy have only gotten worse and worse. It’s a phenomenon we see across all sorts of sectors these days were consumers are paying more, only receiving far less. Some refer to it as “shrinkflation“. I call it price gouging.

This is unacceptable on so many level.

For starters, car insurance is mandatory for Ontario drivers. As such, it’s highly regulated by the Government. This is a Government which the people have elected. Yet, every change made to mandatory car insurance seems to go against the people which they are seeking to protect and empower. It seems that each Government which is elected tinkers with car insurance such that the changes go against the very same people who they serve. Instead, the Government makes changes which favour large insurance companies; which; last time I check, insurance companies aren’t able to cast a vote (people do!).

The Insurance Act, the the pricing of car insurance as a whole has been characterized by the Courts as consumer protection legislation. It’s there to protect the people from being taken advantage of in a highly regulated system. Yet, change after change seems to do the very opposite. It’s taking advantage of all people from all walks of life, and all socio-economic sections of our population. The affluent urban cyclist who is without car and thus without need of car insurance is just as vulnerable as a homeless pedestrian in a car accident. The same can be said for a passenger who was in the wrong place at the wrong time for a car accident. They will all be without the protections which were previously afforded to them prior to the July 1st 2026 changes to the accident benefits system.  How does this benefit anyone at all? The only party which benefits is not a person at all. The only party which benefits is a large, multi national car insurer which no longer has to pay any of the benefits detailed above. The financial savings are immense. I’m sure that the actuaries have done the calculations on the savings which this will present to the insurers which will be astronomical. We aren’t taking a few thousand, or a few million dollars here, it’s much more than that.

At the end of the day, it really makes you wonder. Are these savings really being passed along to the consumer? These are the very people we are trying to service and to protect. Instead, the benefit goes directly into the pockets of large, publicly traded insurance companies which don’t have a vote in any election.

The average person could care less about car insurance. They pay it, and pray that they don’t need it. It’s only when they need it (which happens more than you might think) that they realize that they’re forced to pay for a subpar product which really doesn’t do very much. The burden falls on the public healthcare system. People aren’t getting the treatment they need from car insurance so they aren’t recovering as well, or as quickly from their accident related injuries. They can’t work (need to claim ODSP, OW, EI); and can’t cope with their pain (need to go to hospital, a walk in clinic, urgent care, or see the doctor more frequently). The cuts have an impact. One which you don’t see, until you or a loved one has lived it following  a serious car accident.

The concept of seeking out an expert for comment isn’t novel. It’s a practice that’s used in all sorts of fields.

We see developers engage in experts to help them build large construction projects. The developer will retain an architect, a structural engineer, a traffic engineer, an environmental engineer, an arborist, a planner, a lawyer and the list goes on, all to ensure that the development gets built to standard.

A professional sports team will hire a nutritionist, a psychologist, a strength and conditioning coach, specialist physicians, all to make sure that their team performs as best it can.

In a personal injury case, your lawyer will engage with, and retain experts to make sure that your case is optimized for success and is presented in the best way possible before a Judge and Jury should the matter proceed to trial.

Your personal injury lawyer alone sometimes isn’t enough to “win” a personal injury case. It takes an entire team to get the job done. Here are a few “experts” who your lawyer might engage with or retain in order to maximize the success of your case:

The Rehab Team

Not all treatment is covered by OHIP. In fact, a lot of rehab treatment isn’t covered. Some of the treatment will have to be paid out of pocket, or by a collateral or first party insurer. Occupational Therapy sounds great following a serious accident. But, guess what. It’s not covered in most situations outside of a hospital setting by OHIP. The same applies for physiotherapy, social work, psychological counselling, CBT, massage, chiro, driver retraining, PSW, nutritionist, RSW, speech language therapy, neuropsychological testing… All of this treatment will help an accident victim on their road to recovery, while at the same time, it also helps a Plaintiff illustrate his/her damages in a personal injury case. The Court and insurer might draw a negative inference if the Plaintiff is not receiving regular and sufficient care; either from within or outside of the OHIP system. Their logic is that if a Plaintiff is truly hurt, then s/he will be receiving regular care. If that same Plaintiff is not truly injured, then s/he won’t be receiving regular care and treatment. Whether that approach is right or not doesn’t matter. If a Plaintiff isn’t receiving regular care, it will be used as a tool against the Plaintiff in his/her personal injury case.

Liability Experts

Some accidents aren’t straight forward. Sometimes, liability is in dispute. It’s a he said vs. she said and there is no clear wrongdoer. When that happens your personal injury lawyer might engage with a engineer, or a human factors expert in order to investigate and report on how the accident happen and to comment on who’s to blame for the accident. There are all sorts of liability experts and engineers out there who can help. Slip and fall on a wet surface? There are experts for that. Car accident at a greenish/yellow light? There are experts who will conduct traffic studies and traffic light analysis studies to determine who was at fault. Gun accident? Product defect? Food poisoning? A rogue security guard or police officer gone bad? How about an expert to comment on whether or not a professional breached the standard of care (standard of care report). There are experts for those cases as well. You name the case; there’s a good chance that your personal injury lawyer will be able to find an expert for that. In Ontario, if you have a medical malpractice case, changes are your case isn’t going very far if you don’t have the right expert to comment on liability/the standard of care.

Damages Experts

Sometimes the parties aren’t fighting about liability. What they’re fighting about are the damages or the injuries themselves. The Plaintiff alleges that the injuries and the ensuring damages are large, and have a big impact on the Plaintiff’s life. The Defendant will argue the opposite, or will argue that the Plaintiff has not sustained any injury or damages whatsoever. In these scenarios, a personal injury lawyer will retain an expert who can comment on what injuries and damages were sustained as a direct result of the subject accident, and how those damages are having an impact on the Plaintiff’s life. The expert will be able to say what the diagnosis is, what the prognosis for recovery is, and hopefully be able to tie those injuries to the subject accident (causation). Some experts are able to specifically quantify the damages to the Plaintiff from the accident. Past and Future Care Cost Reports forecast what those damages are and tie a dollar figure to those claims. Accountants and Actuaries can prepare income loss reports, or can prepare reports as to how someone’s small business suffered (business valuation report).

Litigation Experts and Focus Groups

Your personal injury lawyer can run a focus group to see how you will perform, and be received at trial. This is akin to running a pretend mock trial to see how well a Plaintiff will stand up to scrutiny, and how well (or not well) his/her evidence will be received. Your personal injury lawyer can also retain graphic designers or an IT consultant for all of the slides, graphics and exhibits which will be presented during the course of your case or trial so that it’s easily digestible and accurate for a Judge, Jury and defence lawyer(s). Trials in 2026 lean heavily on technology and presenting evidence is a cogent and cohesive way which is easy for the trier of fact to grasp and then to revert back to over the course of the trial itself. A flashy and accurate presentation of the evidence can go a long way.

Every little factual detail in these cases matters. Splitting hairs is what these cases are all about.

Often, in these sport cases, the nature of the injuries takes a back seat to liability (who is at fault and how the accident happened). The circumstances leading up to the accident, and the accident itself are very important. It’s not uncommon for the parties to agree on damages; but to disagree on almost every point dealing with liability.

The Tort of Public Misfeasance

What the Tort Requires

The leading case is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse (2003). That case arose after police officers fatally shot a young man during an attempted arrest. The shooting triggered an investigation by the Special Investigations Unit, and the officers involved were required by statute to cooperate by, among other things, remaining separated, making themselves available for interviews, and producing their notes. The victim’s family alleged that the officers deliberately failed to comply with those obligations and that senior police officials knowingly failed to ensure they did.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that those allegations, if proven, were capable of establishing the tort of misfeasance in public office. The Court explained that public misfeasance is a narrow tort intended to protect citizens from the deliberate misuse of governmental authority. It is not enough to show that a public official made a mistake, exercised poor judgment, or carried out public duties incompetently.

The Court identified two essential elements of the tort.

• First, the public official must deliberately engage in unlawful conduct while exercising public powers or performing public duties. the Court confirmed that “unlawful conduct” can include the deliberate failure to perform a mandatory statutory duty.
• Second, the plaintiff must establish the required mental element. The public official must know that the conduct is unlawful and know that it is likely to harm the plaintiff, or be recklessly indifferent to both the unlawfulness of the conduct and the likelihood of harm.

That distinction is important. Mere negligence, carelessness, poor judgment, or a misunderstanding in the course of police conduct is not enough.

How Courts Have Applied Odhavji

Subsequent decisions demonstrate that courts have applied Odhavji (2003) cautiously. The mental element remains the main difficulty, and courts are reluctant to let allegations of negligence be reframed as bad faith without concrete supporting evidence.

Manoharan v. Taylor (2025) illustrates the kind of allegations that may satisfy that requirement. The plaintiffs alleged that an OPP officer investigating their eligibility for cannabis retail licences approached the investigation with the predetermined intention of ensuring that the licences would be refused. Rather than conducting an independent investigation, the officer allegedly repeated serious organized-crime allegations supplied by another officer without attempting to verify them, despite the absence of corroborating evidence. Those allegations later unravelled before the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which found in the plaintiffs’ favour.

That mattered because the plaintiffs were not simply alleging that the investigation was wrong. They alleged deliberate investigative misconduct: that the investigator intentionally relied on allegations he knew were unverified, ignored contrary information, and used public authority to achieve a predetermined outcome.

Courts have also recognized that plaintiffs will rarely have direct evidence of a public official’s state of mind. In Ray v. Ontario (2025), the court accepted that exceptionally reckless conduct may, in rare circumstances, permit an inference of bad faith. However, the threshold remains high. The conduct must be so inexplicable or so fundamentally inconsistent with the governing statutory scheme that deliberate unlawfulness or reckless indifference becomes a reasonable inference. Ordinary negligence—even serious negligence—does not meet that standard.

Courts have also rejected attempts to plead public misfeasance based on speculation that evidence of bad faith may emerge later during discovery. In Yadeta v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board (2023), the plaintiff alleged that police and Crown officials acted maliciously but largely relied on the hope that disclosure and discoveries would eventually uncover supporting evidence. The court rejected that approach, emphasizing that plaintiffs must plead concrete material facts capable of supporting every element of the tort before discovery begins. Similarly, in Aboagye v. Ontario (2025), the court emphasized that a plaintiff cannot avoid the requirements applicable to bad-faith claims by describing the allegations differently. If, in substance, the claim alleges deliberate abuse of public authority, the strict pleading requirements governing public misfeasance will apply.

Collectively, these cases reinforce the narrow scope of the tort recognized in Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse (2003). Public misfeasance is reserved for deliberate abuse of governmental authority.

The Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019: A Significant Hurdle to Public Misfeasance

Even if the elements of public misfeasance could be pleaded, there is another major obstacle that does not arise in an ordinary negligence claim. Section 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 (“CLPA”) requires plaintiffs to obtain leave (permission) from the Superior Court before pursuing claims against the Crown or Crown employees based on misfeasance in public office or other torts founded on bad faith. Until leave is granted, the proceeding is automatically stayed. The purpose of this requirement is to shield the Crown from unmeritorious allegations.

The Leave Test

Section 17(7) of the CLPA provides that leave will only be granted if the court is satisfied that:

1. the proceeding is being brought in good faith; and
2. there is a reasonable possibility that the claim requiring leave will ultimately be resolved in the plaintiff’s favour.

The Ontario Court of Appeal explained in Poorkid Investments Inc. v. Ontario (Solicitor General) (2023) that this is intended to be a meaningful screening process, not simply a procedural formality. Plaintiffs must do more than identify an arguable legal theory—they must present a plausible claim supported by evidence capable of demonstrating a realistic possibility of success. More recently, Wei v. Ontario (2026) confirmed that, although a leave motion is not intended to become a “mini-trial,” the court must still undertake a meaningful assessment of both the legal basis for the claim and the evidence supporting it.

One of the most significant practical consequences of the CLPA is that plaintiffs must satisfy this test before the ordinary discovery process begins.

Plaintiffs must file affidavit evidence setting out the material facts on which they rely, together with an affidavit of documents identifying all relevant documents currently in their possession, control, or power. The Crown may respond with its own evidence and cross-examine the plaintiffs and their witnesses, but plaintiffs cannot examine Crown witnesses before the leave motion is heard.

This creates a particular challenge in public misfeasance claims because the evidence needed to establish bad faith—such as internal communications, investigative notes, or supervisory discussions—is often in the Crown’s possession. Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the leave requirement by arguing that evidence of bad faith will likely emerge during discovery. The evidentiary foundation must already exist before leave will be granted.

From a practical perspective, the leave requirement makes public misfeasance claims significantly more onerous, time-consuming, and procedurally complex than ordinary negligence claims. The parties must first prepare for a contested motion, which will take notable time to schedule due to court backlog. Even if leave is granted, the litigation proceeds in the ordinary course: documentary production, discoveries, expert evidence, and trial remain to come, and the Crown may still bring a motion to strike or a motion for summary judgment. Surviving the leave stage does not mean the claim will ultimately succeed or even make it to trial.

The Tort of Ordinary Negligence

Unlike public misfeasance, an ordinary negligence claim does not require proof that public officials deliberately misused their authority or knowingly acted unlawfully.

Instead, the claim asks four familiar questions:

1. Did the OPP owe the Plaintiff a duty of care?
2. If so, did the OPP breach the applicable standard of care?
3. Did that breach cause the losses being claimed?
4. If all of those questions are answered “yes,” what damages are recoverable?

Although those questions appear straightforward, the first—whether the OPP owed a private duty of care—is the most significant obstacle in this case. If a court concludes that no such duty exists, the negligence claim ends there, regardless of whether the investigation could have been conducted differently.

Duty of Care

The first question in any negligence claim is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care: a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing foreseeable harm. That principle becomes more complicated when the defendant is a public authority such as the OPP.

Police officers owe duties to the public. They investigate crimes, enforce the law, preserve public safety, etc. A negligence claim requires something more: a private duty of care, meaning a legal obligation owed specifically to a plaintiff rather than to the public generally. Courts have been reluctant to recognize private duties of care arising out of police investigations. Otherwise, every disappointed complainant, suspect, victim, witness, or family member could potentially sue over investigative decisions, which could interfere with the ability of police to investigate independently and make difficult discretionary decisions in the public interest.

Public Duty vs. Private Duty

A key decision is Wellington v. Ontario (2011). That case arose after a young man was fatally shot by a police officer. The SIU investigated whether criminal charges should be laid against the officer. The deceased’s family later sued the Province, alleging that the SIU negligently conducted its investigation and that a proper investigation would likely have resulted in criminal charges.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the SIU did not owe the family a private duty of care. The Court accepted that the family had an obvious personal interest in the outcome, but emphasized that the SIU’s statutory role was to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct independently and in the public interest. Its responsibility was not to advance the interests of victims or their families, but to determine whether charges were warranted based on the evidence.

That reasoning creates a significant hurdle for Plaintiffs in these cases.

Can Statutory Duties Create the Necessary Proximity?

Proximity is central to this issue. Even if it is foreseeable that a poor police investigation may harm a Plaintiff’s civil case, courts also ask whether the relationship between the parties is sufficiently close that it is fair and just to impose a private legal obligation. One way proximity may arise is where legislation imposes specific obligations directed at a particular class of persons or a particular type of investigation.

Traversy v. Smith (2007) also arose from an OPP collision investigation. The plaintiffs alleged that shortcomings in the investigation impaired their subsequent civil action. The court refused to strike the negligence claim because the pleadings relied on provisions of the Highway Traffic Act requiring officers investigating reportable collisions to gather specified information and prepare written collision reports. Those statutory duties arguably created sufficient proximity that the issue should be decided on a full factual record rather than at the pleadings stage.

The recent decision in Delfin v. CAA Insurance (2025) illustrates both the potential and the limits of that argument. The plaintiffs alleged that shortcomings in an OPP collision investigation prevented them from identifying the responsible driver and pursuing a civil claim. The court rejected a broad duty requiring police to conduct competent investigations for the benefit of future civil litigants, but distinguished claims based on specific statutory or regulatory duties governing how investigations must be carried out.

Breach of the Standard of Care

Even if a court concludes that the OPP owed a Plaintiff a private duty of care, the Plaintiff would still need to prove that it breached the applicable standard of care. The question is not whether the OPP reached the wrong conclusion, or whether the investigation could have been conducted differently. Police officers, like other professionals, are expected to exercise reasonable judgment, and the law allows room for reasonable errors. The issue is whether the investigation fell outside the range of what a reasonably competent collision investigation required in the circumstances.

Answering that question would require expert evidence regarding accepted police investigative practices. Specific statutory duties, regulations, or internal OPP investigative procedures would also be highly relevant.

Causation

If duty of care and breach can be established, the Plaintiffs would still need to prove that the alleged negligence damages. This is called causation.

Each link in that chain requires evidence. It is not enough to show that a better investigation might have produced a different result. The Plaintiffs would need to show that on a balance of probabilities, it would have. Expert evidence would also be required on this causation part of the case.