Kitchener
416.860.0003
Bar Admission:
2009
Michael is a seasoned trial lawyer and partner at McCague Borlack LLP in the Kitchener office, where he has dedicated his entire career to insurance defence litigation. His practice encompasses a broad spectrum of negligence law, including motor vehicle liability, occupiers’ liability, and product liability. He also handles complex contract disputes, such as accident benefits claims, defence and indemnity agreements, and employment litigation.
Michael has appeared before every level of court in Ontario. He has served as lead counsel in both jury and non-jury trials at the Superior Court of Justice and has successfully argued appeals before the Court of Appeal for Ontario. His advocacy extends to administrative tribunals, including the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).
Known for his commitment to professionalism and civility, Michael brings a pragmatic and reasonable approach to every case. He is a skilled negotiator who pursues fair settlements when appropriate and is a tenacious advocate who vigorously defends his clients’ interests when a trial or hearing is necessary.
Outside the courtroom, Michael adores spending quality time with his daughter and family. He also contributes to his community as a board member of the Guelph Youth Music Centre, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to fostering musical education among young people.
Villella v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 114381 (ON LAT)
Gutierrez v Security National Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 28458 (ON LAT)
Gutierrez v Security National Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 61183 (ON LAT)
Gutierrez v. Security National Insurance Company, 2025 ONSC 5174 (CanLII)
Shaikh v Security National Insurance Company, 2024 CanLII 38454 (ON LAT)
Capone v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2024 CanLII 94143 (ON LAT)
TD General Insurance Company v Haribalan, 2024 CanLII 23454 (ON LAT)
Rajalingam v TD General Insurance Company, 2024 CanLII 18092 (ON LAT)
Kesete v. Gaspar, 2024 ONCA 198 (CanLII)
Maycid v.TD General Insurance Company, 2023 CanLII 67914 (ON LAT)
Miele v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2023 CanLII 87432 (ON LAT)
Majerczyk v Manalo, 2023 ONSC 3064 (CanLII)
Majerczyk v. Manalo, 2023 ONSC 6236 (CanLII)
Majerczyk v. Manalo, 2023 ONSC 6311 (CanLII)
Kesete v. Gaspar, 2022 ONSC 6860 (CanLII)
Ruetz v. Metro Canada Inc. et al., 2021 ONSC 20 (CanLII)
18-001879 v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 CanLII 27909 (ON LAT)
Rabb Construction Ltd. v. MacEwen Petroleum Inc., 2018 ONCA 170 (CanLII)
16-003931 v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2017 CanLII 62161 (ON LAT)
Paul Tauschek v. TD General Insurance Company, 2017 ONFSCDRS 48 (CanLII)
Maria Grazia (Grace) Petrone v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2017 ONFSCDRS 307 (CanLII)
Aranas v Kolodziej, 2016 ONSC 7104 (CanLII)
Basmatie Rampersaud v. TD General Insurance Company, 2013 ONFSCDRS 25 (CanLII)
Meincke v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2013 ONSC 7675 (CanLII)
Ananthanadarajh Thayalan v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2012 ONFSCDRS 20 (CanLII)
Ananthanadarajh Thayalan v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2012 ONFSCDRS 97 (CanLII)
Han Yu v. Security National Insurance Co., 2012 ONFSCDRS 116 (CanLII)
In its recent decision of Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada v. SNIC, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") considered the priority of a travel policy and auto policy to pay out-of-province medical expenses. Both insurers claimed they were excess to each other, with the travel insurer relying upon the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling in RBC Travel Insurance Company v. Aviva Canada Ltd. ("RBC Travel"), which limited the application of section 268(6) of the Insurance Act (which legislates all other insurance policies to be "excess" insurance to auto policies). However, the auto insurer's counsel (Michael Kennedy with McCague Borlack LLP) successfully argued that RBC Travel should be distinguished, resulting in the auto policy being held to be excess due to section 268(6).
Winter Maintenance Contracts - Featured Case Study: Ruetz v Metro Canada
This case arose out of injuries sustained by an individual when ice allegedly fell from an above canopy onto her head as she was exiting a grocery store. The plaintiff sued the property owner (represented by Michael Kennedy at McCague Borlack LLP), who in turn sued its winter maintenance contractor for contribution and indemnity pursuant to a hold harmless clause in its contract.
Arbitration regarding whether a claimant had a reasonable explanation for the delay in notifying his insurer of his intention to claim benefits, as well as whether the claimant is entitled to both pre-104 week and post-104 week income replacement benefits.
The applicant, Johnson, was involved in an automobile accident in 2017 and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (the "Schedule"). The respondent, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (the "Insurer"), denied psychotherapy benefits. Johnson (the "Applicant") applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) for the resolution of the dispute.
Of the issues adjudicated in this decision, the LAT explored the appropriate rate payable to psychotherapists in the context of statutory accident benefits.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court reviewed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "LAT") and addresses whether auto insurers can require an insured to undergo medical examinations to determine eligibility for prescription medication claims.
Litigation Loans and Adverse Cost Insurance
This paper provides detailed information across all Canadian jurisdictions regarding: