Catherine has been practicing in the area of insurance defence litigation since 1995. Her current practice focuses on the defence of statutory accident benefits claims, including acting on behalf of auto insurers in loss transfer and priority disputes between insurers, and tort claims. Her practice includes a focus on privacy law. She has analyzed legislation, case law, policies, studies and current developments in privacy law. She has drafted privacy defence reference materials for clients (including federal and provincial privacy). She defends clients on cyber security breaches across Canada.

She has acted as legislative counsel on behalf of automobile insurers. On behalf of insurers, she worked in approaching the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and successfully argued for the Superintendent’s approval of Insurers’ Preferred Provider Networks (PPNs). This permitted insurers across the Province of Ontario to arrange for a claimant to attend groups of insurer-selected health care providers to deliver programs of care. Thereafter, as counsel for insurers, she successfully worked with the Financial Services Commission to establish best practices for Preferred Provider Networks and to minimize insurers’ exposure to conflicts of interest and unfair and deceptive practice and act allegations.

Catherine is chair of our Automobile Fraud Practice group. She has represented insurers and the Ontario Bar Association in submissions to Justice Cunningham as to the changes to the Dispute Resolution Practice Code. Most recently, she has provided legislative submissions on behalf of the Ontario Bar Association to the Ministry of Finance regarding Bill 171 – Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014. She is further involved on behalf of the Ontario Bar Association in legislative submissions to the Ministry of the Attorney General on proposed changes to the law of joint and several liability in the province of Ontario.

Catherine has appeared on behalf of insurer clients at the Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal. She also appears regularly before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. She is currently chair of the Government Advisory Committee to the civil law section of the Ontario Bar Association. Catherine serves as counsel to the Toronto Medico-Legal Society.

Featured Cases:

• 21-005179 and Wawanesa, 2023 CanLII 19914 (ON LAT).  The applicant was denied entitlement to a treatment plan of $87,300 for inpatient treatment of addiction on the basis it was not reasonable and necessary.

• Primmum v. L’Unique Assurance General, 2022 ONSC 6336 (ON Div. Ct).   On Divisional Court Appeal, L’Unique's dismissal request of Primmum’s application for loss transfer of catastrophic accident benefits was successfully denied.  The purpose of s.268 establishing priorities for responding to a Statutory Accident Benefits claims, being the ranking system is based on insurers not insurance policies.

• Francia  v.  Licence Appeal Tribunal and Economical, 2021 ONSC 7847 (ON Div. Ct.).  At Divisional Court Appeal on behalf of the insurer, it was successfully argued that the applicant’s impairments were sustained as a result of his employment duties in the clean-up of a chemical spill following a fatal collision between a transport truck and tractor-trailer that resulted in an explosion and fire causing the chemical spill.  On behalf of the insurer it was argued that the incident was not an accident as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

• 19-009605 and Wawanesa, 2021 CanLII 104417 (ON LAT).   Catastrophic claim for $1,277,130 for alternative housing was denied on the basis it was not reasonable and necessary.   There needs to be a connection between the proposed modifications and the accident related impairments.  There was not a fulsome assessment as to whether or not the applicant’s needs could be accommodated by modifying the rental apartment.

• Abyan v. Financial Services Commission of Ontario and Sovereign General Insurance (2019), ONSC 7247 (ON Div. Ct.).  At Divisional Court Appeal, on behalf of the insurer it was successfully argued the constitutionality of the minor injury guideline, if necessary, should proceed only after a full hearing of the merits.

• 18-003314 v. Wawanesa, 2019 CanLII 43877 (ON LAT).   Catastrophic applicant was found not to be entitled to attendant care at the quantum claimed of $6,000 monthly.  The PSW hired was unaware of suicidal ideations, substance abuse or psychological issues.  This lack of knowledge and communication did not support an urgent need for 24-7 supervision.

• 17-005604 v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2018 CanLII 140989 (ON LAT).  The applicant failed to establish the statutory requirement of proof of incurred in regards to the catastrophic claim for attendant care.    

• 17-005685 v. Economical, 2018 CanLII 112125 (ON LAT).  The applicant was statue barred from seeking a non-earner benefit.   There was no reason to extend the limitation of time under s.7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act given the lack of evidence of incapacitation for eight months during the two year limitation.

• Unifund ats. Dewing, Appeal P13-00018, Aug. 28, 2013 - FSCO Appeal decision regarding production of surveillance and application of stare decisis to appeal determinations by the FSCO tribunal.

• Hurst v. Aviva, CanLii 837(Ontario Court of Appeal), 2012 - Ontario Court of Appeal decision which determined that a FSCO mediation was deemed failed if the statutorily prescribed time for the same had elapsed.

• Tran v. Aviva (2012) – A trial involving repayment by a massage therapist and acupuncturist for misrepresentation as to credentials.

• Agarwal v. York Fire, 2012 – A Court determination as to whether an accident benefits and tort trial were to be tried together.

• Joseph Galati v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2011 - An appeal decision of Director’s Delegate Lawrence Blackman upholding the arbitrator’s decision to dismiss the applicant’s claims for benefits.

• Troncoso v. RBC, 2011 - A combined tort action and accident benefits action in which the insurer was successful in obtaining a judicial order dismissing all claims.

• Mr. S. v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2010 - A competency hearing in which the insurer obtained an arbitrator’s order that the applicant was a party under disability.

• Cowans v. Motors Insurance Corporation, 2010 - An arbitral decision as to whether the insured met the post-104 week test for entitlement to income replacement benefits.

• Eric Boucher, by his litigation guardian v. Tomascik, 2009 - A tort action involving dismissal due to party's non-compliance.

• Wendy Boucher v. Tomascik, 2009 - A tort action involving dismissal due to party's non-compliance.

• Franca Miliucci and Christopher Dewald v. Milos Antic, Wafic Choucair and RBC General Insurance Company, 2008 - A tort action involving disputes regarding attendance at Courts of Justice Act Medical Assessments.

• Madonik v. Aviva Canada Inc, 2008 - An appeal decision in which the insurer successfully upheld the Arbitrator's Order regarding production obligations of the applicant.

• Baron v. Kingsway General Insurance Company, 2006 - The insurer successfully argued it was entitled to defence medicals in order to challenge a CAT DAC determination.

• The Personal v. Kingsway General Insurance Company, 2006 - A loss transfer dispute between insurers. Kingsway successfully argued The Personal was estopped from disputing liability after its initial acceptance of loss transfer.

• Maguire-Card v. RBC General Insurance, August 19, 2005 - The applicant sought income replacement benefits arising from a business plan to open her catering business. RBC was successful in establishing the business plan did not qualify as employment or an offer of employment under the SABS. The applicant was precluded from income replacement benefits.

• McDougall v. Kingsway General Insurance, November 18, 2004 - McLeish Orlando as counsel for the applicant attempted to prevent the insurer from a Section 42 neurological assessment by Dr. Ranelli on the basis this assessment was post-stoppage of benefits. The Arbitrator found Kingsway was allowed to assess the applicant's neurological condition, and a Section 42 assessment was ordered.