Ottawa Injury and Disability Law Lawyers - Proud Sponsors of Ottawa Independent Living Resource Centre (OILRC)

The lawyers of Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP a law firm focused on Ottawa Injury and Disability Law are proud sponsors of the Ottawa Independent Living Resource Centre (OILRC)who put on a fantastic benefit concert over the weekend hosted at Greenfield's Pub, Barrhaven's original pub. Several local bands played all day and into the night in support of the Centre. The hosting, music and food were fantastic. All bands were wonderful and talented, but we especially enjoyed listening to the Robert Farrell Band. Check out Robert Farrell Band's web site at http://www.robertfarrell.com/. Please consider giving to this excellent Ottawa community non profit resource. The Centre, an accredited member of Independent living Canada, promotes independent living for persons with disabilities. Their mission is to assist in the individual empowerement of all pesons with any disability and to provide the tools they need to direct their lives and particiapte fully in the community. Visit their web site at www.oilrc.com. Ottawa Personal Injury Lawyers, supporting a wonderful Ottawa resource. 613-315-4878

When is a car accident an accident? New Ontario Court of Appeal Decision - Ottawa car accident lawyers explain new decision

Ontario Court of Appeal clarifies what constitutes an “accident” when a motor vehicle is used to injure a person as part of a series of assaults and batteries. When someone is injured as a result of the involvement of a motor vehicle, they are usually entitled to accident benefits and may claim damages from the person at fault. When the injuries are sustained by someone falling shortly after existing a motor vehicle, it will not necessarily be considered an accident entitling the injured person to accident benefits. In the same way, if the injuries are caused by use or operation of a motor vehicle during the commission of a criminal act or series of criminal acts, the injured person will not automatically be entitled to accident benefits. The issue will be whether the injuries were sustained as a result of an “accident”, in the ordinary use or operation of a motor vehicle. The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that each case must be considered on their own facts, but has provided some clarification for personal injury lawyers representing clients injured in vehicle cases under unusual circumstances, particularly when the motor vehicle is used as part of a crime. In Martin v. 2064324 Ontario Inc. (Freeze Night Club), the Ontario Court of Appeal has stated “the use or operation of the automobile must have directly caused the injury...”. In Martin, the injured person was injured through batteries and assaults when his motor vehicle was high jacked. In assessing the issues, the Court tried to clarify its modified causation test. Applying its test, the Ontario Court of Appeal denied the injured person accident benefits determining that the injuries were not caused by an accident in the ordinary use or operation of a motor vehicle. Paul Martin, a part-time music technician, was loading his car after leaving work at a night club in the early morning hours. He was approached by two men who assaulted him. He was eventually forced into the trunk of his car. He was later forced out of the car and the two men fled with the car. Mr. Martin was seriously injured in the process of the attack. His foot was also run over by the car. Certas Direct Insurance Co. denied Martin’s claims for no-fault statutory accident benefits and indemnity for damages under his motor vehicle insurance policy. The insurer claimed that Mr. Martin was not injured as a result of an “accident” within the meaning under the statutory accident benefits schedule or the use or operation of a automobile as provided in the Ontario Insurance Act. At first instance, Superior Court Justice Douglas Gray decided that Martin’s vehicle was “part of the instrumentality” through which he was assaulted and he was therefore entitled to claim accident benefits. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Justice Gray’s decision and found that Gray “failed to address and apply the second branch of the modified causation test”. This test was previously set out in the case of Greenhalgh v. ING Halifax Insurance Co. The second question to ask was whether there was an intervening act that resulted in the injuries that was not part of the “ordinary course of things” in using or operating a vehicle. The Court determined that “forcibly placing a person into the trunk of a car is not in the ‘ordinary course of things’ associated with the use or operation of a vehicle.” This case is important since in many cases, the only avenue for persons injured in car accidents to obtain compensation is through their own motor vehicle insurer, in particular claiming accident benefits which will cover lost income and pay for medical costs such as physiotherapy and rehabilitation and other expenses. While it is clear that persons injured strictly as a result of battery and assault even when a vehicle is used, will not likely be entitled to accident benefits, the question is whether benefits could be paid in cases where a person is injured in an accident through the use or operation of a motor vehicle where a series of events include assault as well as the use or operation of the vehicle. In Martin’s case for instance, the assailants drove over his foot and injured his foot. The Ontario Court of Appeal left that issue open. Martin may very well receive some benefits for the foot injury but not for his other injuries. This decision may very well be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision is reproduced below. Marc-Nicholas Quinn Ottawa Accident Lawyer 613-315-4878 Free Consultations! No Fee Until You Win! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Martin v. 2064324 Ontario Inc. (Freeze Night Club), 2013 ONCA 19 DATE: 20130117 DOCKET: C54832 Cronk, Epstein and Pepall JJ.A. BETWEEN Paul Martin and Cecile Martin Plaintiffs (Respondents in Appeal) and 2064324 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Freeze Night Club, 2028260 Ontario Limited, c.o.b. as Freeze Night Club, John Doe, Robert Doe, 1078976 Ontario Inc.and Certas Direct Insurance Company Defendant (Appellant in Appeal) Ryan M. Naimark, for the appellant Sergio Grillone, for the respondents Heard: September 4, 2012 On appeal from the order of Justice Douglas K. Gray of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 5, 2011, with reasons reported at 2011 ONSC 7145. Cronk J.A.: I. Introduction [1] This appeal concerns the entitlement of the respondent, Paul Martin, to no-fault statutory accident benefits (“SABs”) and indemnity for damages for personal injuries from his automobile insurer, the appellant Certas Direct Insurance Company (“Certas”). [2] Mr. Martin alleges that as he was loading his car in a parking lot after leaving work at a Toronto night club, he was assaulted by two unknown assailants in a parking lot, driven a few blocks away in his own vehicle, further assaulted, and ultimately abandoned by his attackers. He alleges that he suffered ongoing injuries and loss of income as a result of the assaults. He claimed against Certas for SABs and indemnity under the unidentified, uninsured and underinsured coverage provisions of his motor vehicle liability insurance policy. Certas denied both claims. [3] Mr. Martin eventually sued Certas and others in respect of his injuries. On a summary judgment motion brought by Certas, the motion judge declared that: (1) Mr. Martin is entitled to SABs because he was injured as a result of an “accident” within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Accidents on or after November 1, 1996 under O. Reg. 403/96 (the “1996 Schedule”)[1] to the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 (the “Act”); and (2) Mr. Martin’s injuries arose “directly or indirectly from the use [or] operation of his automobile as contemplated in s. 239(1) of the [Act]”, thus triggering the indemnity provisions of the Certas policy. Certas appeals both holdings. [4] For the reasons that follow, I would allow the appeal in part. II. Background Facts (1) The Incident [5] Mr. Martin is a part-time audio technician. At approximately 2:20 a.m. on April 23, 2005, as he was loading his car in a parking lot after finishing work at a Toronto night club, a man approached him and asked if he had any cigarettes. When Mr. Martin replied that he did not, the man pushed Mr. Martin up against his own vehicle. A second man approached Mr. Martin from behind and put what Mr. Martin believed to be a gun to the back of Mr. Martin’s neck. The two assailants sprayed Mr. Martin with pepper spray, pushed him to the ground while they searched him for money and valuables, and eventually forced him into the trunk of his car. [6] The assailants attempted to drive away in Mr. Martin’s car, while Mr. Martin was still in the trunk. However, when they had difficulty working the car’s standard transmission, they forced Mr. Martin into the front seat of the car, demanding that he assist them with shifting the gears. While Mr. Martin was doing so, one of the men continued to hit him on the back of the head. [7] The two thugs then drove to another parking lot, forced Mr. Martin out of the car, and again assaulted him by pushing his head to the ground and kicking his chest and side. One of the two men also struck each of Mr. Martin’s fingers, breaking them, with a blunt object. [8] The perpetrators got back into Mr. Martin’s car, leaving Mr. Martin on the ground, and drove off. As they were leaving, they drove over Mr. Martin’s right foot. The car then stalled and the men got out of the vehicle, pepper-sprayed Mr. Martin again, and fled. [9] After about 15 or 20 minutes, Mr. Martin found running water and was able to rinse the pepper spray from his eyes. When he noticed his car parked nearby, he drove to a hotel. The police and an ambulance were called, and Mr. Martin was taken to the hospital. [10] Mr. Martin alleges that as a result of the assaults, he sustained numerous on-going injuries, including fractures to his hands, lacerations and contusions to his head (including a head injury when his head struck the trunk of his car), injuries to his right foot and right knee, torn muscles and tendons throughout his body and psychological harm, including depression and anxiety. (2) Summary Judgment Motion [11] Mr. Martin’s car was insured by Certas under a standard motor vehicle liability insurance policy. After the assaults, Mr. Martin submitted claims to Certas for SABs and for indemnity under the unidentified, uninsured and underinsured coverage provisions of the policy. As I have said, Certas denied both claims. [12] Mr. Martin and his mother sued the owners of the night club, Mr. Martin’s unidentified assailants and Certas. As against Certas, Mr. Martin claimed payment of various past, on-going and future SABs and indemnity under the Certas policy for damages arising from his injuries. [13] Certas defended Mr. Martin’s claims, denying: (1) that Mr. Martin was involved in an “accident” as defined under s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule; and (2) that Mr. Martin’s injuries were caused by the use or operation of an automobile, within the meaning of s. 239(1)(a) of the Act. [14] In November 2010, Certas moved for summary judgment in the form of an order dismissing the action as against it. The parties agreed that the record permitted a full appreciation of the evidence and the issues required to make dispositive findings by way of summary judgment, thus positioning the motion judge to determine Certas’s motion on the merits, without the necessity of a trial: see Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764, 108 O.R. (3d) 1, leave to appeal to S.C.C. granted, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 48. [15] By order dated December 5, 2011, the motion judge denied Certas’s motion and granted declarations that Mr. Martin was injured as a result of an “accident”, as defined in the 1996 Schedule, and that his injuries arose “directly or indirectly from the use [or] operation of his automobile, as contemplated in s. 239(1)[a] of the [Act]”. III. Issues [16] There are two issues on appeal: (1) Did the motion judge err by holding that Mr. Martin was injured as a result of an “accident”, as defined in the 1996 Schedule? (2) Did the motion judge err by holding that Mr. Martin’s injuries arose “directly or indirectly from the use [or] operation of his automobile”, within the meaning of s. 239(1)(a) of the Act? IV. Analysis (1) Relevant Legislative Provisions [17] At the time of the assaults on Mr. Martin, s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule defined the word “accident”, in part, as “an incident in which the use or operation of an automobile directly causes an impairment” (emphasis added). The predecessor version of the 1996 Schedule contained a more expansive definition of “accident”. Section 1 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Accidents after December 31, 1993 and before November 1, 1996, O. Reg. 776/93, defined “accident” as “an incident in which, directly or indirectly, the use or operation of an automobile causes an impairment” (emphasis added). However, in 1996, this schedule was amended to delete the words “or indirectly”. [18] Section 239(1) of the Act deals with indemnity coverage under the standard form of motor vehicle liability insurance policy in use in Ontario. It provides: 239. (1) Subject to section 240, every contract evidenced by an owner’s policy insures the person named therein, and every other person who with the named person’s consent drives, or is an occupant of, an automobile owned by the insured named in the contract and within the description or definition thereof in the contract, against liability imposed by law upon the insured named in the contract or that other person for loss or damage, (a) arising from the ownership or directly or indirectly from the use or operation of any such automobile; and (b) resulting from bodily injury to or the death of any person and damage to property. [Emphasis added.] [19] Like the motion judge, I will first address whether the use or operation of an automobile “directly cause[d]” Mr. Martin’s injuries, within the meaning of the word “accident” under the 1996 Schedule. As the motion judge observed, at para. 31, if liability for SABs under the 1996 Schedule is established, the insurer’s coverage liability “must also be considered to have been established under [the broader language of s. 239(1)(a) of the Act].” (2) Was Mr. Martin Injured as the Result of an “Accident”? (a) Motion Judge’s Ruling [20] Certas argued before the motion judge that the assaults by the two unknown assailants, rather than the use or operation of an automobile, caused Mr. Martin’s injuries. Certas asserted that because Mr. Martin therefore failed to demonstrate that his injuries resulted from an “accident” as defined in s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule, he was ineligible to receive SABs. [21] Mr. Martin countered that to meet the definition of “accident” under the 1996 Schedule, it was necessary only to establish that an injury arose out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle. This test was met here, he claimed, since his own motor vehicle was used by his assailants during the course of continuing assaults: some of the assaults occurred inside the vehicle, the vehicle was a device that permitted the assaults to occur, and the vehicle was used directly to commit one of the assaults (the injury to Mr. Martin’s right foot). [22] The motion judge began his analysis with consideration of the Supreme Court’s decision in Amos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 405. Amos involved a claim for SABs under a regulation to the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 204, by a person who was attacked and shot through the window of his car by a gang of individuals who attempted to enter the car. The relevant regulation provided for no-fault benefits for injuries caused by an accident that “arises out of the ownership, use or operation of a vehicle”. [23] Under Amos, a two-part test applies to the determination whether an injury “arises out of the ownership, use or operation” of an automobile for the purpose of an insurer’s statutory obligation to provide no-fault benefits to its own insured. In Amos, at para. 17, Major J. formulated this test as follows: 1. Did the accident result from the ordinary and well-known activities to which automobiles are put? [The ‘purpose’ branch of the test]. 2. Is there some nexus or causal relationship (not necessarily a direct or proximate causal relationship) between the appellant’s injuries and the ownership, use or operation of his vehicle, or is the connection between the injuries and the ownership, use or operation of the vehicle merely incidental or fortuitous? [The ‘causation’ branch of the test]. [24] The motion judge held, at para. 49 of his reasons, that Mr. Martin had satisfied the purpose branch of the Amos test. This finding is unchallenged before this court. The central question, therefore, is whether Mr. Martin had also satisfied the causation requirement for the receipt of SABs. [25] The motion judge reviewed several decisions of this court regarding the causation branch of the Amos test, including Chisholm v. Liberty Mutual Group (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 776 and Greenhalgh v. ING Halifax Insurance Co. (2004), 72 O.R. (3d) 338, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 461. [26] Citing the following passage from Chisholm, at para. 11, the motion judge correctly noted that the effect of the 1996 amendments to the predecessor version of the 1996 Schedule, described above, was to narrow, and render more strict, the causation requirement for the receipt of SABs: The 1996 Schedule, which accompanied these statutory amendments, eliminated the word “indirectly” in the definition of accident. Now, as I have discussed, insured persons are entitled to accident benefits only if their impairment or injuries are directly caused by the use or operation of an automobile. Therefore, an insured person seeking accident benefits under the 1996 Schedule must meet a narrower or more stringent causation requirement. [Citation omitted.] [27] In Chisholm, the plaintiff was rendered a paraplegic when an unknown assailant fired gunshots at his car. His claim against his automobile insurer for SABs was denied by his insurer on the basis that his injuries were not caused by an “accident” as defined under s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule. This court upheld the insurer’s denial of SABs on the ground that the shooting constituted an intervening act, independent of the use or operation of the plaintiff’s vehicle, that broke the chain of causation. [28] Greenhalgh also concerned the entitlement of an injured insured to SABs under the 1996 Schedule. In that case, the plaintiff’s vehicle became stuck on a country road on a cold winter night. The plaintiff set out on foot to reach nearby houses and became disoriented and lost. She suffered severe frostbite due to exposure to the elements, resulting in the amputation of her fingers and her legs below the knees. [29] As in Chisholm, this court upheld the plaintiff’s insurer’s denial of the plaintiff’s claim for SABs on the basis that the plaintiff was not involved in an “accident” within the meaning of the 1996 Schedule. This court held that the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries – the weather – was unrelated to the use or operation of the plaintiff’s vehicle. None of the numerous intervening occurrences between the time the plaintiff’s car became stuck and the time she suffered her injuries could be considered a normal incident of the risk caused by the use or operation of her car. The use of the plaintiff’s motor vehicle was ancillary to her injuries. [30] The motion judge concluded that Chisholm and Greenhalgh are distinguishable on the facts from this case. He stated, at para. 46: This is not a case like Chisholm, where the injured party was merely sitting in his car and was shot by an outsider. Nor is it a case like Greenhalgh, where the car was merely a means of transportation to the site where the injured party got lost, and was ultimately injured some distance away from the car. [31] In contrast, in the motion judge’s view, Mr. Martin’s vehicle was “part of the instrumentality through which the assaults were committed”. He reasoned, at para. 46, as follows: [Mr. Martin] was shoved into the trunk of his car; he was forced to assist the driver of the car by shifting gears, while assaults were being committed; he was driven in his own car to another parking lot where the assaults were continued; and he was struck by his own car, and his foot was injured, before the assailants left. [32] Relying on the decision of the Superior Court in Downer v. Personal Insurance Co., 2011 ONSC 4980, 107 O.R. (3d) 65, the motion judge went on to hold, at paras. 51 and 54, that Mr. Martin’s injuries were “directly connected to the use and operation of his vehicle” and, accordingly, his injuries occurred as a result of an “accident” within the meaning of the 1996 Schedule. (b) Failure to Apply the Modified Causation Test [33] Certas submits that the motion judge erred in his causation analysis because it was the assaults on Mr. Martin, and not the use or operation of his vehicle, that directly caused his alleged injuries. Consequently, Certas says, Mr. Martin was not injured as the result of an “accident” within the meaning of that term under s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule. [34] With one exception, which I will address shortly, I agree with this submission. In my view, the motion judge’s reasons suggest that he failed to appreciate that the Amos causation test does not apply to the interpretation of “accident” under the 1996 Schedule. Instead, a modified causation test applies, as established by the jurisprudence of this court. I say this for the following reasons. [35] In Chisholm, at paras. 18 and 20, Laskin J.A. held: [18] Chisholm submits that the Amos test should apply to the interpretation of “accident” under the 1996 Schedule and that he meets this test. In my view, the Amos test does not apply, and even if it did, I am dubious whether Chisholm could satisfy it. ... [20] But the stringent causation requirement – “directly causes” – in the definition of accident under the 1996 Schedule means that the Amos test, or at least the causation part of that test, can no longer be used to interpret the definition. Indeed, Major J.’s reasons in Amos say as much. In setting out the causation part of the test, Major J. explicitly stated at para. 17 that the required nexus or causal relationship between a plaintiff’s injuries and the ownership, use or operation of his or her car was “not necessarily a direct or proximate causal relationship”. [36] Chisholm also emphasizes that even if the use of an automobile may be said to be a cause of an insured’s injuries, a later intervening event can break the chain of direct causation. Justice Laskin explained, at paras. 29 and 34: [29] Put differently, even accepting that the use of Chisholm’s car was a cause of his impairment, a later intervening act occurred. He was shot. An intervening act may not absolve an insurer of liability for no-fault benefits if it can fairly be considered a normal incident of the risk created by the use or operation of the car – if it is “part of the ordinary course of things”. See J.G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, 9th ed. (North Ryde, NSW: LBC Information Services, 1988) at p. 247. Gun shots from an unknown assailant can hardly be considered an intervening act in the “ordinary course of things”. The gun shots were the direct cause of his impairment, not his use of his car. .... [34] [T]he dominant feature of Chisholm’s claim is the gun shots. The use or operation of his car is at best ancillary. [Emphasis added.] [37] In Greenhalgh, this court adopted and clarified the Chisholm approach to causation. Justice Labrosse put it this way in Greenhalgh, at para. 36: [I]n my opinion, the Chisholm test, as it applies to this case, can best be set out in the form of two questions: 1. Was the use or operation of the vehicle a cause of the injuries? 2. If the use or operation of a vehicle was a cause of the injuries, was there an intervening act or intervening acts that resulted in the injuries that cannot be said to be part of the “ordinary course of things”? In that sense, can it be said that the use or operation of the vehicle was a “direct cause” of the injuries? [38] In this case, I have considerable reservations as to whether even the first branch of this modified causation test is met. Although the motion judge concluded, at para. 46, that Mr. Martin’s vehicle was “part of the instrumentality through which the assaults were committed”, there is a strong argument that Mr. Martin’s car was nothing more than the venue where many of the assaults occurred. For this reason, I doubt whether the use or operation of his vehicle was “a cause” of Mr. Martin’s injuries. [39] That said, in my view it is clear that the motion judge failed to address and apply the second branch of the modified causation test articulated in Chisholm and Greenhalgh. With respect, this was an error. Consequently, I prefer to rest the disposition of this appeal on this ground. [40] I find support for the conclusion that the motion judge erred by failing to come to grips with the second branch of the modified causation test in the recent decision of this court in Downer v. Personal Insurance Co., 2012 ONCA 302, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 332. As in this case, Downer concerned whether an insured was entitled to SABs on the basis that he was injured in an “accident” within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule. [41] In Downer, the plaintiff was assaulted by several unknown assailants while he was sitting in his car at a gas station. In the ensuing struggle with his assailants, the plaintiff managed to escape by putting his vehicle in gear and driving away. He believed that, in doing so, he may have run over one of his assailants as he left the gas station. He claimed psychological and physical injuries as a result of the incident and sought to recover SABs from his automobile insurer. [42] The Superior Court judge held, at para. 15, that there was “a direct or proximate causal relationship between the plaintiff’s injuries and the ownership, use or operation of his vehicle”. He further held, at para. 21, that: the plaintiff’s injuries were “caused by assailants whose purpose was to seize possession and control of his automobile from him”; the assault on the plaintiff was not random but, rather, arose out of his ownership, use and operation of his vehicle; and, it was the “ ‘use or operation’ of his own vehicle that put [the plaintiff] in harm’s way”. The Superior Court judge therefore ruled that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by an “accident” and that he was entitled to SABs from his insurer. [43] In the case at bar, the motion judge viewed the facts in Downer as analogous to those in this case. He grounded his own conclusion that Mr. Martin’s injuries were directly connected to the use and operation of his vehicle in the Superior Court judge’s decision in Downer. [44] However, the Superior Court judge’s decision in Downer was reversed, in part, on appeal to this court. This court held that: (1) the Superior Court judge erred in law in his causation analysis by failing to apply the modified causation test outlined in Greenhalgh, in particular by failing to ask whether an intervening act outside the “ordinary course of things” resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries; (2) the physical assault on the plaintiff did not constitute an “accident” under s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule; and (3) the plaintiff’s alleged psychological injuries, which were said to have been caused by his belief that he may have run over one of his assailants as he fled the scene, if proven, may have been caused by an “accident”. [45] Justice LaForme, writing for a unanimous court in Downer, stated, at para. 39: Under the modified causation test from Chisholm and Greenhalgh, it is not enough to show that an automobile was the location of an injury inflicted by tortfeasors, or that the automobile was somehow involved in the incident giving rise to the injury. Rather, the use or operation of the automobile must have directly caused the injury. [46] Justice LaForme went on to hold, at paras. 41, 43 and 49-50: [41] [T]he assault on the plaintiff as he sat in his car sorting his money cannot fairly be considered as a normal incident of the risk created by the use or operation of the car. ... [43] The governing appellate authority on the causation test for defining an “accident” under s. 2(1) of the [1996] Schedule makes it plain and obvious on the agreed facts that the plaintiff’s injuries – insofar as they were caused by the assault – were not directly caused by the use or operation of his vehicle, but rather were caused by an intervening act in the form of an assault that cannot be said to have been part of the “ordinary course of things”. .... [49] [In contrast] I agree that running over someone can fairly be considered as a normal incident of the risk created by the use or operation of a vehicle. [50] Any resulting psychological impairment from such an incident could be “a direct consequence of the use or operation of his motor vehicle”. [47] In fairness to the motion judge in this case, this court’s decision in Downer was released after the date of the motion judge’s ruling on Certas’s summary judgment motion. Nonetheless, Downer compels the conclusion that the motion judge’s causation analysis was fatally flawed. [48] In particular, assuming that the use or operation of Mr. Martin’s car was a cause of his injuries, the motion judge failed to address the second branch of the modified causation test. It required the motion judge to inquire whether an intervening act or acts, which were not part of the “ordinary course of things” or a “normal incident of the risk created by the use or operation of the car”, resulted in Mr. Martin’s injuries. If so, the use or operation of Mr. Martin’s car could not be said to be “a direct cause” of his injuries within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule. [49] The motion judge failed to undertake this critical inquiry. In doing so, he erred. It therefore falls to this court to apply the second branch of the modified causation test to the facts of this case. (c) Application of the Second Branch of the Modified Causation Test [50] In my opinion, with one exception that I will describe below, the use or operation of Mr. Martin’s vehicle cannot be said to have directly caused his injuries. [51] I begin with the initial assaults. On the facts asserted by Mr. Martin, the assaults commenced in the parking lot of the night club, as Mr. Martin was preparing to leave after work. At this point, the assaults consisted of Mr. Martin being pushed up against his car, threatened with what he believed to be a weapon, pepper sprayed, pushed to the ground, and ultimately forced into the trunk of his car. [52] I do not think that Mr. Martin’s injuries from these assaults can fairly be said to have been directly caused by the use or operation of his car. Indeed, his car was not the dominant feature in these assaults at all. Rather, as in Chisholm and Downer, the assaults themselves, which were distinct acts independent from the use or operation of his vehicle, caused Mr. Martin’s injuries. [53] Nor do I view the head injury allegedly suffered by Mr. Martin when he was forced into the trunk of his car as falling into a different causal category. As this court’s decision in Downer makes clear, at para. 39, under the modified causation test established by Chisholm and Greenhalgh, it is not enough to show that an automobile was somehow involved in the incident giving rise to the injury. Rather, “the use or operation” of the automobile must have directly caused the injury. [54] Forcibly placing a person into the trunk of a car is not in the “ordinary course of things” associated with the use or operation of a vehicle. This forcible act is a form of assault, like the other assaults perpetrated on Mr. Martin when his assailants first approached him. Even if it could be said that the striking of Mr. Martin’s head on the trunk of his car involved the “use” of the car, that use was merely ancillary to the assaultive act of attempting to force him into the trunk of his vehicle, which directly caused the injury to Mr. Martin’s head. [55] Similarly, I regard the use or operation of Mr. Martin’s vehicle as ancillary to the next round of assaults. The assailants repeatedly struck the back of Mr. Martin’s head after he was forced into the front seat of his car to assist them in shifting the vehicle’s gears. Any injuries sustained by Mr. Martin from these blows, in my view, cannot be considered a “normal incident of the risk created by the use or operation of the car”. To paraphrase Laskin J.A.’s words in Chisholm, at para. 29, and Labrosse J.A.’s comments in Greenhalgh, at para. 36, quoted above, being hit about the head while being forced to operate the gears of a car can hardly be considered an intervening act in the ordinary course of things. [56] That brings me to the final assaults at the second parking lot where, after being removed from his car, Mr. Martin was pushed, struck on the chest and side, and again pepper sprayed. In a further act of gratuitous violence, his fingers were broken with a blunt object and, it is said, his car was driven over his right foot by his fleeing assailants. [57] All these senseless acts, except for the injury to Mr. Martin’s foot, had nothing to do with the use or operation of Mr. Martin’s car. These assaults, in my opinion, constituted intervening acts that cannot reasonably be said to be part of the “ordinary course of things” associated with the use or operation of Mr. Martin’s vehicle. In this sense, the use or operation of the vehicle was not, as a matter of law, “a direct cause” of the injuries suffered by Mr. Martin in the second parking lot. [58] I reach a different conclusion, however, concerning the alleged injury to Mr. Martin’s right foot. [59] Based on the evidence before the motion judge, I think there is a strong argument that the injury sustained by Mr. Martin to his right foot was directly caused by the use or operation of his vehicle, that is, by an “accident” within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule. In contrast to Mr. Martin’s other injuries, the direct cause of the injury to Mr. Martin’s right foot was the operation of the car itself. [60] On this record, it is unclear whether the mishap with Mr. Martin’s foot was inadvertent or deliberate. If deliberate, it may be open to Certas to argue that this injury also constituted an intervening, intentional tort that falls outside the reach of the “ordinary course of things” associated with the use or operation of a vehicle. It may also be open to Certas to contend that the renewed theft of Mr. Martin’s vehicle in the second parking lot was itself an intervening event that broke the chain of causation between the use or operation of the vehicle and the foot injury. [61] There is, therefore, at the very least, a genuine issue requiring a trial to determine whether the injury to Mr. Martin’s right foot was sustained in an “accident”, in the sense contemplated by s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule. In respect of that injury and the SABs associated with it, I conclude that Certas is not entitled to summary judgment. [62] Mr. Martin submits that if his SABs claim regarding his foot injury must proceed to trial on the basis that this injury may have been directly caused by the use or operation of his vehicle, he is fully entitled to all SABs claimed in respect of all his alleged injuries. As his counsel put it, “once in the SABs door”, Mr. Martin is entitled to full SABs recovery. [63] I would reject this submission. The definition of “accident” under s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule requires that the use or operation of an automobile “directly [cause] an impairment”. On a plain reading of this provision, the causation requirement is focused on the specific impairment at issue. Thus, if only some of an insured’s injuries are directly caused by the use or operation of an automobile, while others are not, only the “impairments” in the first causal category meet the causation requirement of the definition under s. 2(1). This court took this approach in Downer when it distinguished between the physical and psychological injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff in that case. [64] I add this observation. I see no basis in this case to distinguish Mr. Martin’s alleged physical injuries from his alleged psychological injuries. In Downer, the plaintiff’s claim of psychological injuries was based on his belief that he drove over one of his assailants as he left the scene of the incident. These injuries, therefore, arguably were directly caused by the use and operation of his car. In contrast, the psychological injuries asserted by Mr. Martin allegedly resulted from the overall constellation of assaults that he was forced to endure. Unlike Downer, there is no suggestion that they were specifically triggered by the use or operation of his vehicle. (d) Conclusion [65] I conclude that, with the possible exception of the injury to his right foot, Mr. Martin’s injuries were not caused by an “accident” within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule. I would therefore allow the appeal on this issue, and grant Certas summary judgment, dismissing Mr. Martin’s SABs claims against it, save for those of his SABs claims that relate to the injury to his right foot. (3) Did Mr. Martin’s Injuries Arise “Directly or Indirectly from the Use or Operation of his Automobile”? (a) Motion Judge’s Ruling [66] Because the motion judge concluded that all Mr. Martin’s injuries were “directly connected to the use and operation of his vehicle”, he found it unnecessary to address separately Mr. Martin’s indemnity claim under s. 239(1)(a) of the Act. He said merely, at para. 53: “Since I have come to this conclusion on the SAB[s] claim, as noted earlier there is no doubt that Mr. Martin’s claim under s. 239(1) of the [Act] can also be maintained.” [67] On the motion judge’s SABs ruling, this conclusion was clearly correct. Because I have reached a different conclusion on Mr. Martin’s entitlement to SABs, I turn now to his indemnity claim under s. 239(1)(a) of the Act. (b) Discussion [68] At the outset, I note that the 1996 amendments to the SABs schedules, which introduced the strict causation requirement reflected in the definition of “accident” under the 1996 Schedule, are irrelevant to Mr. Martin’s indemnity claim. The legislature made no companion amendment to s. 239(1)(a) of the Act.[2] That provision continues to contemplate loss or damage “arising ... directly or indirectly from the use or operation of [an insured] automobile” (emphasis added). [69] In Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Vytlingam, 2007 SCC 46, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 373, the respondents were injured as they were driving on a highway when two individuals who were high on alcohol and drugs dropped a large boulder onto their car. The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents were not entitled to indemnification under s. 239(1) of the Act because the liability of the tortfeasors did not arise directly or indirectly from the use or operation of the tortfeasors’ car. Rather, the rock-throwing was an independent act that broke the chain of causation. Justice Binnie, at para. 25, emphasized that “for coverage to exist, there must be an unbroken chain of causation linking the conduct of the motorist as a motorist to the injuries in respect of which the claim is made” (emphasis added). [70] In Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Herbison, 2007 SCC 47, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 393, released concurrently with Vytlingam, a hunter stepped out of his truck, which he left running, and shot at a target that he mistakenly believed was a deer. The target, in fact, was a member of the shooter’s hunting party. The Supreme Court held that the victim’s injury did not arise directly or indirectly from the use or operation of the hunter’s insured truck. Justice Binnie stressed, at para. 12, that the relevant inquiries were: (1) whether the tortfeasor used his “motor vehicle as a motor vehicle and not for some other purpose”; and (2) whether there was “an unbroken chain of causation linking the ... injuries to the use and operation of the ... vehicle which is shown to be more than simply fortuitous”. [71] In my opinion, the causation requirement contemplated by Vytlingam and Herbison is not met on the facts here. Aside from the injury to his right foot, Mr. Martin’s injuries arose from the assaults inflicted upon him by his assailants, rather than from the conduct of his assailants “as motorists”. The fact that some of the assaults occurred in, while others occurred near, Mr. Martin’s vehicle does not satisfy the casual connection envisaged by Vytlingam and Herbison. The involvement of Mr. Martin’s car was merely ancillary or fortuitous to the injuries inflicted. [72] The fact that some of the assaults on Mr. Martin took place when he was inside his vehicle is insufficient to trigger liability under s. 239(1)(a) of the Act. In Russo v. John Doe, 2009 ONCA 305, 95 O.R. (3d) 138, a plaintiff was injured when she was hit by a bullet fragment during a drive-by shooting. She sustained serious spinal injuries that rendered her paraplegic. The plaintiff sued the unidentified driver of the car and her own automobile insurer, pursuant to the Ontario Policy Change Form (“OPCF”) 44R – Family Protection Coverage Endorsement to her motor vehicle liability insurance policy. [73] The plaintiff’s insurer defended the action, claiming that the plaintiff’s injuries did not result “directly or indirectly from the ownership, use or operation” of an automobile, as required by the OPCF 44R Endorsement, but rather from an intervening, independent act – the shooting. The insurer’s subsequent summary judgment motion was allowed, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for indemnity in respect of the damages she suffered. [74] On appeal, this court held that the shooting was a distinct and intervening act that was independent from the use or operation of the vehicle. Justice Juriansz stated, at para. 34: Although the incident can indeed be characterized as a drive-by shooting, this characterization simply means that the vehicle “create[d] an opportunity in time and space for damage to be inflicted”. [Citation omitted.] [75] This reasoning is apposite in this case. Here, Mr. Martin’s car served as the venue for some of the assaults inflicted upon him but, aside potentially from his foot injury, his vehicle was not the direct or indirect cause of his injuries. [76] Nor does the fact that Mr. Martin’s car was used to transport him during the assaults trigger Certas’s liability under s. 239(1)(a). As Binnie J. put it in Vytlingam, at para. 35: “To suggest that any time a car is used to transport people to the scene of a tort or a crime is sufficient to engage ‘inadequately insured motorist’ coverage stretches the intended coverage until it snaps.” [77] Both Chisholm and Russo support the conclusion that Mr. Martin’s vehicle was merely an incidental element to the assaults perpetrated by his attackers. Recall that the plaintiff in Chisholm was injured by a gunshot when he was driving his car; in Russo, the plaintiff was injured by a gunshot fired by a drive-by assailant. In both cases, this court held that the shootings were independent of the use or operation of an automobile and were intervening acts that broke the chain of causation. [78] I note, finally, that s. 239(1)(a) of the Act constrains the types of risk against which an insurer may be expected to provide indemnification. In Vytlingam, Binnie J. stated, at para. 4: “Insurance policies must be interpreted in a way that gives effect to the reasonable expectations of both insured and insurer” (emphasis in original). In my view, an argument that Certas reasonably expected to provide indemnification for injuries arising from assaults that only incidentally involved an insured’s vehicle stretches the coverage it agreed to provide precisely in the manner that the Supreme Court cautioned against in both Herbison and Vytlingam. [79] Accordingly, I conclude that, with the possible exception of the alleged injury to Mr. Martin’s right foot, Mr. Martin’s injuries did not arise, directly or indirectly, from the use or operation of his vehicle, within the meaning of s. 239(1)(a) of the Act. Except, potentially, for losses or damages associated with his right foot injury, Mr. Martin’s indemnification claim against Certas under s. 239(1)(a) of the Act must fail and Certas is entitled to summary judgment accordingly. V. Disposition [80] For the reasons given, I would allow the appeal in part, by setting aside paragraph one of the motion judge’s December 5, 2011 order and substituting in its stead an order: (1) dismissing Mr. Martin’s action against Certas save and except for Mr. Martin’s SABs and indemnification claims concerning the alleged injury to his right foot; and (2) declaring that a genuine issue requiring a trial exists with respect to those of Mr. Martin’s claims relating to the injury to his right foot. [81] Certas has been mainly, but not entirely, successful on this appeal. I would award it some of its costs of the appeal, fixed in the amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes. I would set aside the motion judge’s costs award in favour of Mr. Martin and invite the parties’ brief, written submissions concerning the costs of the motion before the motion judge. I would direct that Certas’s written costs submissions be delivered to the Registrar of this court within 15 days from the date of release of this decision and that Mr. Martin’s costs submissions be similarly delivered within 15 days thereafter. Released: “JAN 17 2013” “E.A. Cronk J.A.” “EAC” “I agree G.J. Epstein J.A.” “I agree S.E. Pepall J.A.” [1] Throughout his reasons, the motion judge refers to the definition of “accident” set out in s. 3(1) of O. Reg. 34/10, which is identical to the predecessor definition of “accident” contained in the 1996 Schedule. However, O. Reg. 34/10 became effective on September 1, 2010, after the date of the incident involving Mr. Martin. The legislative definition of “accident” applicable in this case, therefore, is that contained in s. 2(1) of the 1996 Schedule. [2] The phrase “directly or indirectly” was added to s. 239(1)(a) by the legislature in 1990. See: An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Insurance, S.O. 1990, c. 2, s. 64(1).

How Our Ottawa Injury and Accident Lawyers Charge Fees in Personal Injury Cases – No Fee Until You Win – Contingency Fee Arrangements

How Our Ottawa Injury and Accident Lawyers Charge Fees in Personal Injury Cases – No Fee Until You Win – Contingency Fee Arrangements Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP is a leading law firm in the National Capital Region. We are proud of our success in meeting complex challenges on behalf of our clients. When you retain the services of any lawyer at Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP, you are contracting for legal services with dedicated, experienced and successful lawyers focused on personal injury, disability and accident cases. Our general policy is to charge our clients on the basis of a contingency fee basis. Contingency Fees - What is a contingency fee? Contingency fee arrangements permit persons with limited resources to retain a personal injury lawyer to assist in pursuing and obtaining legal remedies such as awards of compensation for injuries sustained. As your personal injury lawyers, we do not charge hourly rates and are therefore assuming some of the financial risks associated with the personal injury cases we handle. Our fee arrangements reflect this shared risk. With a contingency fee, whether or not fees are paid and the amount of the fee to be paid is contingent on the result obtained. If nothing is recovered in your case, our lawyers will not charge a fee. In certain cases, you may be required to pay disbursements such as the cost of retaining experts or obtaining hospital records. However, if this is part of the arrangement, we let you know in advance. When we win your case and the settlement funds are recovered, our fees will be paid as a percentage of the amount recovered.. The percentage charged depends on a number of variables: the nature and type of claim, the risks associated with the file, chances of success, the amount of possible recovery and so on. In most cases, we charge 30% of the recovery, plus HST and any disbursements incurred. Contingency fees are used in personal injury cases and are not available for criminal or family law cases. It is important that our clients understand how we charge for our services from the beginning of our relationship and so we put our agreement in writing in a document called a retainer agreement. We also put our guaranty (no fee unless we win your case) in writing. Contact one of our lawyers for a free consultation at 613-315-4878. Our Ottawa accident and injury lawyers provide free consultations.

Ottawa Injury Lawyers Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP assist victims of falls and car accidents every day.

Ottawa Injury Lawyers Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP assist victims of falls and car accidents every day. Injuries suffered because of snow, ice and freezing rain. As the rain currently falling freezes and becomes freezing rain, the occurrence of various accidents and injuries increases. We see an increase in calls after freezing rain days, many due to car accidents and falls. Many people fall due to ice or are injured due to black ice causing car accidents in Ottawa. With the snow fall expected, it becomes especially dangerous for drivers and pedestrians. As Ottawa accident and personal injury lawyers, we see how accidents can significantly impact injured people and their families. We focus only on injury cases and obtain millions of dollars in compensation for our injured clients every year. If you have questions about your case, call us for a free consultation. We handle injury cases on a no fee until you win basis. Ottawa Personal Injury Lawyers QTMG LLP 613-563-1131 Team of Ottawa Accident and Injury Lawyers dedicated to helping victims of accidents throughout all of Ontario.

Ottawa Car Accident Lawyers - Accessibility to Injured in Ottawa

Lawyers in Ontario are regulated and how we advertise is subject to certain rules. As personal injury lawyers, we believe that it is important to let our community know that we offer free consultations and accept injury and accident cases on a contingency fee basis - we do not charge a fee until we win the case. As personal injury lawyers, it's important to reach the people who need our help. Marketing and advertising is a fine balance as here in Ontario we try to avoid the marketing hype that everyone is familiar with in the United States. One of the new advertising methods we at QTMG LLP Ottawa Injury Lawyers are now using is bike rack advertising as we like to think this advertising also supports a healthy living lifestyle of riding one's bike to work etc. In this photo we have Marc Quinn, partner at QTMG LLP Ottawa Accident Lawyers, beside one of our newly installed bike racks in Ottawa, Ontario.

Falls in Stairs - Ottawa Injury Lawyers 613-315-4878

Occupier’s Liability in Ontario - Staircase Fall Accident Lawyers in Ottawa Many people trip and fall down because of defective stairs and stair wells. In Ontario, occupiers of property as well as property owners can be held liable for stair accidents. This is the case whether the fall occurred as a result of a trip, slip or other means of falling such as objects in the stairs. The liability largely stems from the obligations of occupiers and owners under the Occupier’s Liability Act of Ontario. Falls down a flight of stairs can be caused by many things. Stairs can be dangerous if not properly built or maintained. In many cases, falls occur because of lack of maintenance or stairs built in a way which does not comply with building standards such as those under the Ontario Building Code. As personal injury lawyers in Ottawa, Ontario, we have handled hundreds of fall cases and have handled cases where persons have suffered minor injuries to catastrophic injuries. When it comes to falls in stairs, these are the most common causes of falls we see: Defective stairs. Defective railings. Loose carpeting. Slippery surface. Objects on stairs. Debris on stairs. Missing handrails. Wet substances on the stairs. Broken stairs. Loose runners. Poorly lit staircase. Poor maintenance. Handling falls caused by stairs can be complicated. Proving negligence often involves the use of experts such as building or engineering experts. Evidence tends to disappear so it is wise to hire a personal injury lawyer right away. Often, there are many persons or legal entities that ca be held liable. The responsible parties may include property owners, contractors, occupiers, owner of the business or their employees and managers, inspectors or other third parties who failed to take care. If you or a loved one has been injured in a staircase fall accident, contact one of our experienced Ottawa personal injury lawyers who has experience with owner and occupier liability negligence cases. Our consultations are free and all fees are handled on a contingency basis. If we represent you in your accident, we will not charge any fees unless we recover money for you. Call us at 613-315-4878 - Ottawa staircase fall lawyers - Marc-Nicholas Quinn, Injury Lawyer, Mediator, Author and Professor.

Bicycle Accidents in Ottawa - Lawyers Focussing on Bicycle Accidents

Bicycle accidents in Ottawa - Lawyers that can help Every day, Ottawa drivers mingle on our municipal roads with pedestrians and bicyclists. The result is that accidents involving pedestrians and bicycles occur. Many drivers fail to show caution when approaching bicyclists and the result is often tragic. Many accidents occur at intersections and major roads. There are several factors that contribute to bicycle and car collisions such as unsafe speed, driver inexperience and inattention. As personal injury lawyers, we can assist bicycle accident victims receive the compensation they deserve. We have represented dozens of bicyclists who have been injured due to negligent car drivers. If you or a loved one has been hurt due to the negligence of another, you may want to consult one of our vehicle and bicycle accident lawyers. Call us for a free consultation at 613-315-4878. Ottawa car accident lawyers - Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP - 613-315-4878.

Ottawa injury lawyers - how to obtain records from third parties in a personal injury claim?

Why do I need to sign directions to release information and documents to my lawyer? At Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP, after helping our clients with thousands of claims, we have come to notice that many of our new clients have very similar questions about the ins and outs of starting a claim and bringing it to a successful conclusion. One of the questions that we are often asked by new clients is ‘What is a direction and why do I need to sign them? ‘ In Ontario, every person has a right to privacy. Therefore, in order for your personal injury lawyer to access records kept about you by other people, your lawyer needs you to sign a direction directed to those other persons allowing them to share their files with or speak with your accident lawyer. Think of a direction form as a permission slip. A signed direction is your way of giving permission to third parties such as Revenue Canada and your doctors to share information with us about you and your legal matter. Directions, sometimes also called authorizations allow your personal injury lawyer to contact third parties to obtain the information they need to help advance your injury claim and prove certain elements of your claim such as loss of income or your injuries. There are many different types of directions because there are many different pieces of information that your personal injury lawyer will need to get you the best settlement possible. Some directions are very general and others are very specific to the type of information that is being requested. One of the most common and essential directions is an OHIP direction. OHIP keeps a detailed record of every time you visit a doctor, hospital or use an OHIP covered service. This record is called a decoded OHIP summary. A decoded OHIP summary allows your personal injury lawyer to find all the doctors, clinics and hospitals that you’ve visited in the last 7 years which makes requesting medical documents much easier. An original signed copy of the OHIP direction is always required to obtain these records and photocopies or fax copies are often not accepted. This helps protect your privacy. Requesting medical documents from your doctors or records from your insurance company is one of the first steps that we take when opening a new file. Medical or other records of your injuries go a long way to validating your claim to an insurance company. Directions are required to obtain all sorts of information that your personal injury lawyer will need to pursue a claim including: • Employment records ; • Medical records; • Police records; • Government documents ; • Income tax documents ; • Insurance records; and • School records. This list is only a sample. As you can see, the number of documents that your personal injury lawyer may need is extensive. Each of these requests requires your authorization and as such when you are beginning your claim there are a number of directions for you to sign. As well, throughout the process of litigation updated records or new records may be required which may require additional authorizations be signed. Although signing all these directions may leave your hand a little tired, they allow your personal injury lawyer to get to work and start advancing your injury claim. At QTMG we strive to provide our clients with the best possible outcomes and settlements for their personal injury claims. If you have suffered a personal injury, our experienced personal injury lawyers are here to help you. Please contact us for a free consultation at 613-315-4878. No fee until we settle.

Ottawa car accident news reports - Tips for Ottawa car accident victims

Ottawa Car Accidents - Tips from an experienced Ottawa personal injury lawyer We all know someone who has been involved in a car accident. It is likely that one out of every four persons you know has been involved in a car accident. Like most accidents, car accidents are preventable and many people are needlessly seriously injured every day because of negligent, careless drivers and worse, drunk drivers. There seems to be a rise in car accidents resulting from distracted drivers, using cell phones, texting or other electronic devices while driving. The range of injuries suffered due to car accidents is wide and include physical, emotional and psychological injuries. In many cases, the emotional and psychological effects of car accidents last long after the physical injuries have healed. Often the physical injuries are long lasting, debilitating and permanent. Some cases result in catastrophic injuries. After a car accident, regardless of fault, you need to protect your interests and rights. Here are some tips of what to do if you or someone you love is involved in a car accident in Ottawa: 1. Call 911. There is usually someone injured and in need of medical attention. 2. Obtain the names and contact particulars of any witnesses. 3. Write down a description of those witnesses. 4. Take photos of the scene of the accident and people surrounding it; many cell phones now have built in cameras. 5. Obtain the names and contact information of the others involved in the car accident. 6. Obtain the insurance information from the others involved in the car accident. 7. Write down what you recall from the accident. Memory fades with time. 8. Report the accident to your own motor vehicle insurer. 9. Do not speak to any insurance adjuster (even your own) before obtaining legal advice from an Ottawa personal injury lawyer. In Ontario, regardless of fault, every person involved in a car accident has the right to claim accident benefits - this is our no-fault system. Persons injured in car accidents in Ottawa and throughout Ontario may also have the right to claim compensation above and beyond accident benefits, in what is called a tort claim or tort action. Dealing with insurance companies is often intimidating and insurers may not be acting in your best interests. Only an experienced Ottawa car accident lawyer can protect your interests. Car accident laws are extremely complex and our Ottawa car accident lawyers can explain your rights to you. Consultations are free and our Ottawa injury lawyers work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there is no fee until you win or settle your case. Call us for a free consultation at 613-315-4878 or 613-563-1131. Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki, LLP, Ottawa injury and car accident lawyers. Offering free car accident case assessments. Visit us at www.ottawapersonalinjurylawyernetwork.com

Ottawa top car accident lawyers - experience does matter

Ottawa Pedestrian and Car Accidents A few days ago, an Ottawa man was critically injured when he was struck by a taxi in the east end of Ottawa. As a result of the car accident, he was seriously injured including fractures to his leg and arm. He also sustained a head injury. He was transported to the Ottawa Hospital in critical condition. At Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP, Ottawa car accident lawyers, we represent car accident victims every day and help our clients obtain fair compensation. We work on contingency fee arrangements and don't charge until we win the case. As a car accident victim, you have rights. You likely have a personal injury claim for compensation against the driver of the motor vehicle that hit you. Often, car accidents occur simply because the driver failed to see the pedestrian or other vehicle, sometimes it is due to driver inattention, negligence or recklessness. In some cases, motorists negligently or recklessly drive onto sidewalks and strike pedestrians. Accidents can happen because of many reasons. Whatever the cause, victims of car accidents are entitled to accident benefits to pay of medical and rehabilitation expenses, as well as other expenses. In order to be compensated fully under the law, there are many steps to take to prove the elements of your case. Only an experienced car accident lawyer can handle these steps effectively. The lawyers of Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP specialize in all motor vehicle accident cases including pedestrian car accident cases. Most cases a settled out of court. They act for injured pedestrians every day. If you have been hurt in a pedestrian accident, we welcome you to schedule your free consultation with us today by calling us at 613-315-4878 or 613-563-1131. Our lawyers are experienced and trained in all aspects of handling a car accident case. We take all the steps necessary to build your accident case. We conduct fact gathering, document preparation, liability assessment, organize medical evaluations and treatment, and obtain necessary medical and expert opinions. If you want to talk to an experienced personal injury lawyer today at no cost to you about your personal injury - car accident claim, call us at 613-315-4878 or 613-563-1131. Our lawyers work on the basis of no fee until you win. This gives all victims access to experienced personal injury lawyers.

Car Accidents - Ottawa Car Accident Lawyers - SUV Accident in Ottawa leaves girl and mother injured at Ottawa Trainyards

Ottawa Car Accident Lawyers - SUV Accident in Ottawa leaves girl and mother injured at Ottawa Trainyards Ottawa news reports that a woman and her 2 children were involved in an accident at the Ottawa trainyards involving their SUV. It appears that the driver was transported to the hospital and treated. The report also states that a 12 year old girl was also injured and lost concsiousness. She was also treated. In some cases, people suffer injuries in car acidents and SUV accidents with no obvious visible signs of injury. There are many injuries that do not appear right away after an accident. Soft tissue injuries often don't show signs (such as bruising) until many days after the Ottawa car accident. Similarly, back injuries are often only revealed days after a car accident once swelling has set in. Our Ottawa Injury and Accident Lawyer Blog is written regularly by the lawyers of our Ottawa injury law firm - Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP. As a personal injury law blog, our local blog it reports on issues relating to injuries and accidents in Ontario and focusses on accident and personal injury issues. It also reports on local Ottawa news. Our blog deals with issues affecting persons injured in various accidents in the greater Ottawa area and throughout Ontario. Visit us at www.ottawapersonalinjurylawyernetwork.com. Call us for a free consultation at 613-563-1131 or 613-315-4878.

Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) when involved in a bicycle accident with a motor vehicle - Ottawa Bicycle Accident Lawyers

Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) when involved in a bicycle accident with a motor vehicle - Ottawa Bicycle Accident Lawyers In most cases, drivers of motor vehicles simply do not see cyclists and inevitably accidents between motor vehicles and cyclists occur all too frequently. In other cases, drivers of motor vehicles simply drive without regard to the rights of cyclists and therefore expose them to harm. Given the physical exposure cyclists have, when involved in motor vehicle accidents the results can be traumatic and include serious injuries such as fractures, brain injuries, head injuries and spinal cord injuries. While the Highway Traffic Act affords cyclists some protection when it comes to fault, it affords no real protection in terms of compensation. Under the provisions of the Insurance Act however, cyclists who are injured as a result of a collision with a motor vehicle are entitled to certain stated benefits. Regardless of whether the accident is found to be the fault of the cyclist or the driver of the motor vehicle, the cyclist will be entitled to significant accident benefits including income loss, medical treatment and rehabilitation care which are all included as benefits under the statutory accident benefits. If you have been involved in a bicycle accident involving a motor vehicle, you are entitled to statutory accident benefits including: supplementary medical benefits and rehabilitation benefits, attended to care benefits, weekly income replacement benefits, funeral and death benefits, non-earner benefits and the care giver benefits. As bicycle accident lawyers, we can assist you in the process of obtaining statutory accident benefits and, if the driver the motor vehicle is at fault for the accident, claim compensation from the driver such as damages for pain and suffering and any expenses not covered by the statutory accident benefits schedule. If you or someone you care about has been involved in a bicycle accident involving a motor vehicle, contact one of our lawyers free of charge for a free consultation. Call us at 613-315-4878 or 613-563-1131. Our lawyers work on the basis of a contingency fee which means that you will not be charged a fee unless our lawyers obtain compensation for you. Our lawyers only paid if you receive compensation. Contact Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP at 613-315-4878 or 613-563-1131. Ottawa bicycle accident lawyers.

Ottawa Injury Lawyers - Tips for persons injured in a fall accident

The ways in which a person can fall causing injuries are endless. Owners and occupiers of properties often fail to keep their property safe. As a result, people fall and injure themselves in the process. Slippery floors, ice, snow, uneven surfaces, lack of railings, falling objects and poor lighting are only a few examples of how people are injured due to the negligence of others. If you fall on someone else's property and are injured, yo likely have a personal injury claim and should be compensated. Falls in commercial buildings, shopping centres, retail stores, residential or other private, institutional or commercial premises are often causes by the negligence of others.   If you have been injured due to a fall, there are certain things you should do immediately to protect your claim.   Put the at fault party on notice of the fall in writing. Take pictures of the scene of the fall and circumstances causing the fall. Take pictures of your injuries. Measure any item that caused the fall such as the trip ledge or the hole in question Obtain the contact details of any witnesses. Save any documents that prove you were at the location of the incident such as a receipt or parking stub.   As your injury lawyers, we will give you a detailed list of steps you need to take to protect your interests.   As Ottawa accident lawyers, we focus our law practice only on accident cases.  We obtain millions of dollars in compensation for our clients each year. If you are injured in a car accident, consult one of our car accident  lawyers free of charge.  We handle accident cases on a no fee until you win basis. If we do not succeed in obtaining compensation, we do not charge a fee.   98% of our cases settle ! Contact us and we will make sure you get the compensation you deserve.   Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP Ottawa accident and injury lawyers 613-315-4878 613-563-1131

Ottawa Car Accident Lawyers Free Consultations

Ottawa Car Accident Lawyers   Automobile accident law in Ontario is extremely complex. The insurance industry is a significant lobby group and car insurance law, like most insurance law, is complex. In Ontario we have a "no-fault" car accident system. While the at fault driver will be held accountable for damages, the no fault principle ensures that any person injured in a car accident will receive basic benefits, called accident benefits in Ontario,regardless of fault. In essence, part of the compensation you can receive for your injuries does not have anything to do with whose fault the accident is. Standard accident benefits contained in insurance policies in Ontario under the provincial Insurance Act include medical expenses, rehabilitation, care giver costs, income replacement benefits and more.   If you are injured in a car accident because of someone else's fault, you can sue whoever is responsible for fair compensation. This can include loss of income, pain and suffering, housekeeping costs, future care costs, out of pocket expenses and other expenses not covered by standard accident benefits coverage.   As Ottawa car accident lawyers, we focus our law practice only on accident cases.  We obtain millions of dollars in compensation for our clients each year. If you are injured in a car accident, consult one of our car accident  lawyers free of charge.  We handle accident cases on a no fee until you win basis. If we do not succeed in obtaining compensation, we do not charge a fee.   Contact us and we will make sure you get the compensation you deserve.   Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP Ottawa accident and injury lawyers 613-315-4878 613-563-1131

Ottawa OC Transpo Bus Accident Lawyers - What you need to know about OC Transpo bus accidents

Ottawa OC Transpo and car Accident Lawyers

If you have sustained injuries as a result of an accident involving an OC Transpo bus, you may have a right to claim compensation. Insurance laws were recently changed in Ontario which may apply to limit an injured person's right to claim certain compensation in bus accident cases, especially where the injuries were not sustained as a result of a “collision” with another vehicle.

In many cases, the claim for compensation is denied by the insurance company representing the Ottawa bus driver or OC Transpo. In some cases, it’s your own car insurance or disability insurance company which is refusing to compensate you for damages you sustained. In either case, you will need to hire a specialized legal representative. The lawyers at Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP - Ottawa Accident and Injury lawyers regularly represent personal injury clients who are involved in bus accidents such as OC Transpo bus accidents.

After a bus accident, if you wish to claim compensation, it becomes very complex. The injured person has the right to seek compensation from their own insurance company, under what is called no-fault insurance. However, the injured person may also have rights to claim compensation from OC Transpo and the bus driver or the other driver who collided with the bus, in what is called a tort claim. Maneuvering through this procedural and legal mind field requires experience. Ontario has one of the most complicated bus and car accident compensation systems in the world. Our law firm's knowledge and experience will help you obtain all the compensation you deserve.

Accident benefit claims or no-fault accident benefits claims compensate the injured person for such things as loss of income, expenses relating to others assisting an injured person with completing household maintenance and expenses related to self-care activities. The insurer, under no-fault law, must also pay for all necessary medical services and rehabilitation to limits prescribed in the policy of insurance. Benefits are paid pursuant to an application by the injured person and there are time-lines by which applications must be provided to the insurer.

At Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP, we have handled many cases where the insurance companies have denied benefits that they are legally and contractually obligated to pay. You are entitled to dispute the insurer’s refusal to pay your benefits. Different levels of benefits are available to injury victims, depending upon the type of injury and impairments. The process of obtaining accident benefits and claiming damages in a tort claim is complicated and requires careful and experienced analysis by an experienced personal injury lawyer who has extensive experience dealing with vehicle accident cases such as Ottawa OC Transpo accident cases.

In a tort claim, you may claim compensation from the person responsible for the collision. The compensation paid under a tort claim is normally paid by the responsible person’s insurer. In Ontario, injury victims who suffer serious and permanent injuries can recover damages compensating them for their losses, including their pain and suffering, their past and future lost income, their extraordinary future health care and home maintenance costs, their out of pocket expenses, interest and legal costs.

There are time limits which govern when an injured person must notify the responsible parties that they intend to bring a claim. There are also time limits by which an injured person must commence a court case seeking compensation. These time limits can restrict or eliminate an injured person's right to recover damages and compensation. Whether a person has the right to commence a court action against another person in car accident or OC Transpo accident cases is a complicated issue. Liability must be assessed. Our experienced personal injury lawyers in Ottawa can assess the issues in an OC Transpo accident cases such as liability, proper persons to seek compensation from, notices, time periods, insurance coverage issues and the value of your snowmobile accident claim.

At Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP, we understand the complexities of vehicle accidents and the profound affects injuries sustained in vehicle accidents may have on the injured person and their family. Our team of experienced and dedicated injury lawyers is dedicated to assisting persons injured in all types of car accident claims, such as OC Transpo accident cases. They know how to deal effectively with the insurance and litigation systems in order to obtain maximum compensation. Our lawyers represent injury victims throughout southeastern Ontario.

At Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP, we focus our law practice entirely on personal injury and accident law. We assess every case very carefully in order to identify all possible damages options so that our clients recover all types of damages necessary to adequately and fairly compensate them for their injuries.

Our lawyers will take every step necessary to avoid trial and negotiate with insurance companies on behalf of injured persons so that they obtain all benefits and compensation they deserve.

However, we prepare each case as if they are going to trial; that way, of the case does not settle (95% of all cases do settle however), we are prepared for trial. We have a vast network of medical and non-medical experts such as physicians, surgeons, neurologists, accident reconstruction specialists, occupational therapists, health care professionals, economists, accountants, actuarial experts and others, with whom we will consult to determine the full extent of your injuries and assess the full extent of your damages.

If you have sustained an injury as a result of an OC Transpo or other type of vehicle or car accident, even if you were at fault or partly at fault, it is still worthwhile to consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer.

Contact us for a free consultation at 613-315-4878 or 613-563-1131. One of our Ottawa OC Transpo accident lawyers will be glad to answer any of your questions and discuss our contingency fee arrangement which provides that we do not charge any fees unless we win your case.

Ottawa ATV accidents, serious injuries - Ottawa ATV Lawyers explain your rights for free

Ottawa personal injury lawyers report on another ATV accident in Ottawa and surrounding areas

As Ottawa Personal Injury Lawyers and Ottawa Accident Lawyers, at this time of year we are asked to provide legal advice and representation in a variety of motorized vehicle accidents, including skidoos and ATV accidents which can cause catastrophic injuries. We represent injured persons who are seriously or catastrophically injured in snowmobile accidents. In some cases, the matter involves wrongful death allegations.

With the winter season, people use winter recreation vehicles and accidents occur. There are reports of fatal ATV accidents in Ottawa and surrounding areas such as l’Ange Gardien. Each year there are fatal ATV accidents in Ontario. If you or someone you care about has been injured due to an ATV, snowmobile or skidoo accident, as experienced personal injury lawyers, we can assist in obtaining compensation.
This Ottawa Injury and Accident Lawyer Blog are written regularly by the Ottawa personal injury lawyers Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LP. Since 1997, we have been helping Ottawa and surrounding area residents who are accident victims recover compensation.

If you have been injured and are an accident victim, we can assist you. This blog reports on accidents in Ottawa and eastern Ontario; we discuss and report on personal injury issues and issues pertaining to accident victims. We report on local Ottawa news and events affecting injury victim.

Visit us at www.ottawapersonalinjurylawyernetwork.com or www.pqtlaw.com. Call us for a free consultation at (613) 315-4878 or 613-563-1131. Ottawa Accident and Injury News Blog. No Fee Until You Settle.

Ottawa ice and snow lawyers - what to do if you are injured due to ice or snow?

Ottawa Ice and Snow Lawyers – Representing Victims of Falls in Eastern Ontario

The lawyers of Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP have extensive experience handling cases for individuals who have suffered personal injury as a result of slips and falls on snow or ice, whether it occurred on private or public property. The law regarding preventing accidents occurring as a result of snow and ice is complex. Only experienced injury lawyers can provide you with the best result.

The law recognizes that property owners must take responsibility for protecting those who enter onto their property. Property owners can be responsible for removing both natural and unnatural accumulations of ice and snow so as to keep their property reasonably safe during the winter. The property owner, or the person controlling the property (such as occupiers), must use all reasonable care to prevent dangerous walking conditions caused by ice, snow or other hazards. If reasonable care is not taken, the property owner (or occupier such as a tenant) may be held liable for injuries sustained by someone falling on their property. If the property owner has contracted with a third party such as a snow removal company, they must do so in a reasonable way. Contracting with a third party does not mean the owner and/or the occupier is not also liable (i.e. responsible) at law.

The property owner may be a homeowner, a business owner, an institution, a private company or a municipality. A property manager who is responsible for maintaining the property may also be liable. The company providing snow and ice removal and treatment may also be liable if their work is done poorly.

As citizens, we have the right to expect that property owners, such as private property owners, institutions and municipalities will take reasonable steps to keep their property safe. If you have been injured as a result of falling on ice or snow, you may be entitled to recover compensation for your personal injuries. As Ottawa ice and snow liability lawyers, we understand the complexities of snow and ice cases. We have the experience, expertise and resources to assist our clients after they have suffered personal injuries from accidents resulting from falls due to ice or snow.
The types of injuries caused by falls in ice and snow cases vary greatly. The injuries can be minor or extremely severe, including fractures, head injuries, spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injuries and serious soft tissue injuries. We have represented clients who have sustained permanent life-long disabling injuries due to what appeared to be relatively minor falls.

If you fall due to the negligence of another person, we can assist you in obtaining compensation. After you receive medical treatment, promptly contact one of our personal injury lawyers so that evidence can be obtained. It is very important that photographs showing the condition of the area you fell in be taken as soon as possible after the fall. It is also important that witnesses be contacted right away by your injury lawyer so witness statements can be obtained. Never talk to an insurance company, agent or adjuster without an Ottawa injury lawyer. Never sign documents without your Ottawa injury and accident lawyer.

Choosing the right personal injury lawyer who has experience with ice and snow cases is vital to successfully obtaining compensation. Personal injury is our specialty, which is all we do, every day. We are considered one of the leading and best personal injury boutique law firms in Ontario.

Call us for a free consultation at 613-315-4878 or 613-563-1131. Ottawa Personal Injury Lawyers of Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP (Marc N. Quinn).

Another Ottawa OC Transport accident. Not every bus accident entitles an injured person to damages

Ottawa Injury Lawyers reporting on Ottawa accidents and injuries. There was an accident in Ottawa recently involving an OC Transpo bus and a person has suffered serious personal injury. Did yo know that unless the OC Transport bus is involved in an actual collision, you may not be able to sue, even if you were injured?

The accident we are reporting on occurred at the LeBreton bus station located at the corner of Booth Street and Albert Street, Ottawa. It is reported that the Ottawa accident victim suffered facial injuries as well as trauma to his left chest and arm. He was transported by ambulance and treated by the emergency physicians at the Ottawa Hospital.

The Ottawa Injury and Accident Blog is written regularly by Ottawa personal injury lawyers Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP who, since 1997 have assisted injured persons and their families receive compensation. Our law firm has a team of lawyers focused in helping accident victims and their families who have been seriously injured in an accident anywhere in Ontario. This blog reports on accidents in eastern Ontario, with a focus in Ottawa, we discuss personal injury and accident issues and report on local Ottawa news and events that affect injured persons. Visit us at www.pqtlaw.com or www.ottawapersonalinjurylawyernetwork.com. Call us for a free consultation at 613-563-1131 or 613-315-4878. There is no fee unless we settle your case.

A law firm dedicated to helping accident victims and their families. Considered a Top Ottawa Injury Law Firm.

Ottawa school liability lawyers - how to sue a school or teacher

Ottawa School Injury Lawyers

If your child has been injured at school, your child may be entitled to compensation. Negligence is not always apparent and as injury lawyers, we can determine if the accident was caused due to the negligence of another party, be it the school, school board, other child or particular teacher.

There is no question that students get injured at school all the time. There is also no question that in many cases, children are injured through participating in normal school activities, sports, and so on and there really is no one to be blamed. Sometimes accidents are simply accidents and children are injured without the negligence of another person.

In other cases however, the accident could have been avoided. In some cases, the accident occurs because the school, the school board or a particular teacher is negligent and a child is seriously injured. There are a variety of ways in which children suffer injuries at school which are due to the negligence of another person. The wide array of negligent acts include: failure to maintain the school premises safe, providing defective and faulty products and equipment, failing to properly and adequately supervise activities, allowing dangerous activities such as sporting activities which are beyond a child's ability, etc...

Each case of school liability must be analyzed on its own facts and negligence must be assessed and evaluated with regard to the specific circumstances of each case. Claims against schools and school officials are difficult to prove and a lawyer who is experienced in such cases is needed. Not every injury lawyer is qualified to handle these types of cases.

At Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP, we have significant experience in dealing with children and accident cases. Marc Quinn, a partner of our office has never lost a case against a school, school board or school official.

Ottawa serious injury and school accident lawyers - Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP - We have a special interest in personal injury, accident and disability cases. There is no fee unless we recover money for our clients. Our consultation is free and confidential.

Call us for a free consultation at 613-315-4878 or 613-563-1131.

Pain and Suffering Damages - Ottawa Accident Lawyers - considered leaders in their field - What are general damages?

What is pain and suffering damages?

In any personal injury or accident cases, there are different types of damages which may be recoverable from the person who caused the injury, the at-fault party. They include special damages such as lost wages or lost income, out of pocket expenses and medical costs. There is also a type of damage called "pain and suffering damages" which is also sometimes referred to as non-pecuniary or general damages.

This is a sum of money that a court can order the at-fault party to pay or which is more often agreed to as part of a personal injury settlement. It is meant to compensate the injured person for the pain and suffering they endured and may continue to endure as a result of an injury or injuries sustained in an accident. These damages are all sought from the at-fault party and in most cases, the at-fault party has insurance to cover the damages.

Calculating the amount of damages for the loss of enjoyment of life, however, is not an easy task and your lawyer uses his or her legal skills to make an assessment in this regard. Your personal injury lawyer will use medical and other evidence, research case law and discuss with you the various ways the injury or injuries has affected your life and those of your family to arrive at an amount that would fairly compensate you for this head - type of monetary damages.

Therefore, you need experienced personal injury lawyers who focus their law practice on injury law. Hire QTMG Law firm, a team of injury lawyers dedicated to helping injured persons in Ottawa and throughout Ontario.

Ottawa serious injury and accident lawyers - Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP - We have a special interest in personal injury, accident and disability cases. There is no fee unless we recover money for our clients. Our consultation is free and confidential.

Call us for a free consultation at 613-315-4878 or 613-563-1131.

Chronic Pain Lawyers - Fight for clients seeking compensation from insurance companies

Chronic Pain Injuries - Ottawa Chronic Pain Injury Lawyers

Chronic pain, fibromyalgia and chronic pain syndrome can occur as a result of a variety of accidents, including car accidents, truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, bicycle accidents, ATV accidents, boating accidents, other motorized vehicle accidents, slip and fall accidents, trip and fall accidents, or any other traumatic injury or occurrence.

From both a legal and medical perspective, chronic pain is difficult to prove. Unlike obvious injuries such as fractures or serious trauma, chronic pain is not something that appears on x-rays or scans. In essence, chronic pain is an injury explained by people as ongoing significant and often excruciating pain. It is a subjective pain complaint and there is no way to easily identify chronic pain through medical devices or testing.

However, chronic pain is a serious medical condition and there are experts who can assess, treat and provide professional opinions on the causes and nature of the pain. Experts can provide their views on how chronic pain impairs a person's ability to function, to work etc... They assess symptoms such as shoulder pain, headaches, body aches, radiating back pain, neck pain, shoulder pain, depression, fatigue, anxiety, sleep disorders, concentration problems, loss of memory and other cognitive functions.

In many cases, insurers do not believe their insured is disabled because of chronic pain and deny benefits in short term or long term disability claims. We handle many cases involving disputes between disability insurers and injured persons seeking disability benefits. We also handle many claims for compensation from wrongdoers to cause accidents which injures our clients, causing them to suffer from chronic pain.
The lawyers at Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP know how to fully assess and support victims of chronic pain and we work with medical experts - physicians, medical specialists, pain specialists and rehabilitation specialists in order to obtain fair compensation that addresses all of the needs of our clients. In many cases, chronic pain is proven by consulting a combination of experts in the field and we take this multi-disciplinary approach to chronic pain cases.

We have been very successful in winning cases against wrongdoers and insurers in chronic pain cases.

If you are a victim of chronic pain and believe that you have claim for compensation or disability benefits, please contact one of our lawyers for a free consultation. Call us at 613-315-4878 or 613-563-1131 [Marc-Nicholas Quinn, injury, accident and disability lawyer].

www.ottawapersonalinjurylawyernetwork.com - Ottawa pain injury lawyers

Ottawa head injury lawyers protect families

Head Injuries - Ottawa head injury and spinal cord injury lawyers - Why you need experienced lawyers

Brain injuries lead to profound changes in quality of life and the impact of a head injury is often permanent and varied. Head injuries are complex and require expert medical attention. It also requires expert legal attention. The full impact of head injuries on the injured person and their family often is not revealed until a significant amount of time has passed. One cannot underestimate the subtle impact of head injuries, causing emotional and psychological difficulties including cognitive deficits and serious personality changes, often not obvious at first.
In most cases, head injuries have devastating consequences for the brain injured person and their family.

At Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP, we have the experience and necessary team of lawyers and other legal professionals to fully and comprehensively assess, handle, litigate and settle head injury cases. We ensure that our clients are full and comprehensively compensated for all of the consequences of head injuries. Our law firm represents people throughout Ontario who have suffered brain injuries. We are experienced lawyers who work endlessly to maximize the compensation and benefits our clients require as a result of suffering a head injury.
We have handled a broad range of brain injury cases, including but not limited to injuries caused by a sudden physical damage to the brain, including severe traumatic brain injury, moderate traumatic brain injury, mild traumatic brain injury, various closed head injuries and concussions. Traumatic brain injuries result in different medical and legal challenges which require experienced legal and medical analysis and assessment.

Traumatic brain injuries can result from a variety of accidents. Many of the brain injury cases we handle result from car accidents, blow from falling objects or falls. We also handle brain injury cases arising from medical negligence. Injury to the brain can be caused by trauma which may or may not cause penetration to the skull and by the imposition of external forces which causes the head to twist or shake violently. There are other causes of head injuries. All result in significant negative adverse consequences.

We understand that head injuries cause profound physical, emotional and psychological damage. We understand that the impact of head injuries can be obvious and yet some are more subtle and can develop over time. We understand that brain injuries cause short and long term pain and life consequences. We understand that brain injuries have significant impact on the injured person and also on their families. We understand that brain injuries require short and long term treatment and the costs associated with the various treatments can be significant, including physical and psychological rehabilitation.

At Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP, we have the experience needed to address head injury cases fully and comprehensively. We have represented many clients in personal injury and other accident cases where the injuries are severe, prolonged and permanent, including head and spinal cord injury cases.

On behalf of our clients, we retain and rely on medical experts to provide professional medical legal assessments and opinions. We also hire and rely on various non-medical experts such as actuarial experts, economists, engineers, rehabilitation experts, accountants, tax experts and life care specialists such as certified life care planners. Our experts assess past and future needs of our clients and also assess the financial cost of fulfilling those needs. We hire experts in every field necessary to full assess our client's needs.
If the case proceeds to trial, we use technical evidence such as demonstrative evidence, graphic evidence, photographs, enlarged medical test results such as films and scan results, animation software and more. In many cases, we hire experts in the field of life assessment and have them prepare day-in-the-life videos which have proven very successful in depicting the day to day challenges of persons injured. This level of complex analysis and legal work is absolutely required in spinal cord and head injury cases.

We assign a team of lawyers and law clerks to each injury case. Our strength lies in the fact that we have teams of lawyers and legal professionals who can work toward the common goal of advancing our clients' interests in these complicated cases.

Our lawyers are strong legal advocates. Each case is assessed fully from a liability perspective and from a damages-compensation perspective; and a strategy for achieving positive results and success is formulated in every single case. We apply winning proven strategies and techniques to mediation and other forms of alternate dispute resolution, such as judicial pre-trials, arbitration and settlement conferences. We first focus on reaching maximum compensation through non litigation means. If necessary however, we are not afraid of the courtroom and we do take cases to trial.
At Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP, we assess all costs associated with the short and long term medical and non-medical needs of our clients.

While the obvious costs such as medical care expenses, rehabilitation expenses, assistive aid expenses, medical device expenses and similar expenses must be fully assessed, we focus as well on the less obvious costs such as the impact on social and family relationships, pain and suffering from every conceivable angle, loss of income and benefits and the short and long term impact on quality of life.

When someone suffers from a head injury, they suffer greatly and their family members also suffer greatly. We also focus on ensuring all family members are full compensated. We advance claims for loss of care, guidance and companionship, for care services, expenses, loss of income and more. In cases of motor vehicle accidents having caused the spinal cord injury or injuries, we work on obtaining statutory motor vehicle accident benefits for the injured person and any eligible family members.

Our law firm has the resources, knowledge and experience required to obtain compensation in head injury and spinal cord injury cases. To arrange a free consultation about your injury case, please contact us by e-mail at mquinn@pqtlaw.com or call us at 613-315-4878 or 613-563-1131.

Quinn Thiele Mineault Grodzki LLP – We level the playing field between insurance companies and injured persons throughout Ontario.
We represent clients throughout Ontario, with a special focus on eastern Ontario and Ottawa in particular. www.pqtlaw.com or www.ottawapersonalinjurylawyernetwork.com