Toronto
416.860.0003
Bar Admission:
1986
Van joined the firm as a partner in 1998, after having been a partner at another major Toronto litigation firm.
Van’s practice involves personal injury, motor vehicle claims, trucking and cargo losses, accident benefits, occupiers’ liability, municipal liability, property loss, insurance contract claims, environmental claims, product liability, assault, sexual abuse, and malicious prosecution. He is an experienced trial counsel, having appeared at all levels of the Ontario court system.
Van is recognized as a LEXPERT Canadian Leading lawyer in the areas of personal injury and commercial insurance.
In addition to his practice, Van has also taken up the position of Mediator. As a litigator who has acted for both plaintiffs and defendants, Van brings to the table as a mediator, the ability to engage with lawyers and clients alike, the ability to listen and respond with a balanced point of view, and fairness to the process for all individuals involved. Van believes an effective mediator is essential in maximizing the likelihood of success given the cost of litigation and delay in getting to a pre-trial let alone a trial. Van is taking this opportunity to gather his experience from years of practice and applying them to help resolve disputes in a timely, responsive and gratifying way.
In Infinity Construction Inc. v. Skyline Executive Acquisitions Inc. et al., argued by McCague Borlack LLP, judgment was granted for the full amount in favour of, MB client, Infinity.
The issues at trial pertained to the amount owed by Skyline to Infinity, the applicable interest rate, and the interest accrual date.
This matter arose out of a tragic motor vehicle accident that occurred in the Region of Durham during a long winter storm. Durham contracted out the winter maintenance of its roads to Miller Maintenance Ltd. with the requirement that Miller obtain a Comprehensive General Liability (CGL) policy of insurance for public liability and property damage naming Durham as an additional insured. Pursuant to the contract however, the CGL only insured Durham “in respect of all operations performed by or on behalf of Miller” and did not include damages caused by the negligence of Durham or its employees.
The main issue in this motion was whether Zurich was contractually obligated to indemnify Durham for the claims alleged by the plaintiffs.
On April 13, 2012, Justice Sheffield of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released his decision granting an order for summary judgment in our client’s favour. The issue before Justice Sheffield was whether the plaintiffs’ liability coverage was improperly removed by their insurance broker and our client, Lombard Canada Ltd., such that coverage should have responded and indemnified the plaintiffs for an underlying claim in negligence. See the full summary or read the court file.
The Material Covered will Blow your Mind! We are so excited to announce the panel for our webinar!
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the courts were unable to hold jury trials for many civil claims, particularly MVA and tort cases. This ended in May 2022, and jury trials for civil cases have since resumed. During this time, many decisions proceeded before only a judge. This paper will outline the major differences between judge-alone and jury trials.
In the recent decision of Cromarty v. Waterloo (City), Justice D.A. Broad of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with the applicability of the Minimum Maintenance Standards2 as a defence to municipal liability in the case of a pedestrian trip and fall on a municipally-owned sidewalk.