Toronto
416.860.0003
Bar Admission:
1991
For 25 years, Peter has been the preferred defence counsel for many of North America’s most prominent insurers and corporations. With broad experience in the defence of municipal, professional liability, construction, and commercial claims, including the liability of municipal officials, architects, engineers, geotechnical consultants, building inspectors, land surveyors, construction consultants, real estate agents and brokers, life insurance agents and brokers, financial and investment advisors, and directors and officers of corporations, he is the key contact for many of the firm's clients.
Peter has provided advice and counsel regarding insurance disputes, class actions, surety and fidelity bonds, property and boiler and machinery policies. Peter has successfully litigated numerous product liability, personal injury, property and subrogation claims, and has appeared at various levels of the Ontario court system, before administrative and regulatory bodies, and in Alternative Dispute Resolution forums.
Effective claims resolution in a timely manner and on budget is Peter’s top priority. He vigorously pursues litigation in a way that garners respect from his clients, opposing counsel and judges, mediators and arbitrators. Where there is opportunity for a fair settlement, it is expeditiously obtained. Peter excels at managing the lawyers, clerks and students at his firm and is primarily responsible for the firm’s most important institutional clients. When not supervising workloads and mentoring lawyers, Peter continues to provide expertise on his own case files in the practice areas listed below.
Hemmings v Peng - the issue of remoteness of damage (“legal causation”) in the context of a medical malpractice claim.
This paper was first published with Advocates' Quarterly in their September 2023 issue. The defence of novus actus interveniens is ringed in by various conditions and limitations to the extent that there is relatively little opportunity for its application. The major limitation is that it is unavailable where the later negligent conduct was reasonably foreseeable, "was the very thing that should have been anticipated", or "the very kind of thing which is likely to happen."
Following up our recent article on Business Interruption amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the March 30, 2020, Ontario Superior Court decision MDS Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company continues to remind us that the old adage, ‘you get what you pay for' rings loud and true...