Personal Injury Lawyers 
Toronto, ON

Case Results for Toronto Car Accident Lawyers

We fight the insurance companies for the compensation you deserve

You’ve been injured in a car accident. Your injuries require treatment and the medical bills are adding up quickly. You can’t work and there is less income coming in. It’s a stressful time in your life and you need experienced legal representation to help you get justice. That’s when it’s time to call Smitiuch Injury Law.

We stand apart from other law firms in several ways. We offer the resources and experience of a big law firm, but the personal attention only a small firm can provide. If an insurance company won’t negotiate in good faith, we are not afraid to go trial. Since our founding in 2001, we have a record of results for clients.

Trial Lawyers, Winning Results video thumbnail

Our firm has recovered millions for victims who have been hurt in car, truck, motorcycle and personal injury accidents caused by the negligence of another. We build strong cases that insurance companies can’t ignore. We don’t rest until we reach a resolution of your case that meets your needs.

If you’ve been hurt in an accident in the Greater Toronto Area, learn more about how we can help. Contact us to schedule an appointment with one of our experienced car accident lawyers. If we represent you, our promise is “no win, no fee” – meaning you pay nothing unless we recover compensation.

Trial Decisions

Pye vs Di Trapani et al.

On October 12, 2023, a jury in Hamilton, Ontario brought back a verdict in favour of our client, William “Bill” Pye, for damages in the sum of $1,018,865.90. The trial result far exceeded the pre-trial offer of $500,000.00 by more than double. The insurer was Desjardins Insurance.

Our client, Bill Pye, a longstanding employee of Reliance Home Comfort, was struck by another vehicle that drove through a stop sign and collided with his motorcycle. The collision happened on his birthday and Mr. Pye suffered significant orthopeadic injuries in the collision.

In March 2024, Justice Skarica ordered the Defendant to pay ~$1.1 million for costs, disbursements, and interest. Of significance in his ruling is the increase of the pre-judgment interest rate be increased from .08% to 3%. The hourly rates of trial counsel were also approved at $925 and $550. The total amount owing is ~$2.2 million. The offer made by the Defendant before trial was $650k, all inclusive.

Michael Smitiuch, Shawn Snider and Philip LeDonne were trial counsel for the Plaintiff.

Sanson v Paterson and Sanson v Security National Insurance

On August 18, 2022, after a five-week trial, Mr. Justice W. D. Black, on behalf of the Ontario Superior Court, rendered Judgment in favour of our client, Geraldine Sanson, in the total sum of $2,637,423.88, plus costs and disbursements of $1,197,705.24. The trial result far exceeded the pre-trial offer of $263,625.65, plus costs. The insurers were Aviva and Security National Insurance.

Our client, Geraldine Sanson, a recipient of the prestigious Law Society Medal and a trailblazing human rights lawyer, was struck down as a cyclist by a motorist on October 19, 2012. As a result of this collision, despite her best attempts, Ms. Sanson’s legal career was derailed due to the traumatic brain injury she suffered, amongst other injuries. Mr. Justice Black found the motorist fully at fault for the subject collision, and the Court’s award acknowledged the tremendous success Ms. Sanson had in her legal career up until the collision.

Following the trial verdict, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the jury’s verdict with an adjustment only on the loss of income amount awarded.

Michael Smitiuch and Peter Cho were trial counsel for the plaintiff.

Janet Moore and Robert Lamers v 7595611 Canada Corp. and Konstantin Lysenko

On November 7, 2019, a jury in Milton, Ontario, found the owner of an illegal Toronto rooming house responsible for the death of Alisha Lamers and ordered him to pay the victim’s family more than $1.3 million.

In November 2013, Alisha Lamers died as a result of a tragic house fire after being trapped in a basement apartment.

The jury found Konstantin Lysenko responsible for the death of Alisha. He failed to prepare and implement a safety plan for the house, he did not maintain working smoke detectors, he did not provide a second means of egress and there were bars over the basement windows which prevented Alisha from escaping through them.

Michael Smitiuch and Luke Hamer were trial counsel for the plaintiff.

Coulson v Sunrise Senior Living Inc. et al.

On July 12, 2018, a jury found Sunrise Senior Living Inc. negligent in the death of a 77-year-old resident. The jury reached its verdict after a four-week trial at the Superior Court of Justice in Brampton. Evelyn Coulson of Brampton died of strangulation on June 15, 2009, at a Sunrise nursing home in Mississauga, when her head became trapped between the mattress and a halo ring, a medical device used to help patients get in and out of bed.

In total, the jury awarded damages in the amount of $640,000 after finding that Sunrise Senior Living Inc., as well as the manufacturer and the installer of the halo ring, were negligent in Coulson’s death.

Although it is rare in Canada, punitive damages were specifically awarded against Sunrise. Punitive damages are meant to punish a defendant and are only awarded in specific circumstances, including those in which the conduct is highly reprehensible and departs from the ordinary standards of decent behaviour.

Michael Smitiuch and Luke Hamer were trial counsel for the plaintiff.

Sparrock v Gurdev Dhillon et al.

On October 5, 2017, a jury in Hamilton returned a verdict in favour of an Ontario Provincial Police officer who was injured in the line of duty. Michael Smitiuch and Peter Cho of Smitiuch Injury Law were the lawyers for the police officer. The trial took almost three weeks and numerous witnesses testified, including medical and financial experts and other police officers.

On March 28, 2012, Constable Dave Sparrock pulled over a vehicle for a Highway Traffic Act violation. While he was writing a ticket in his police cruiser (which had all emergency lights on) a transport truck failed to move over and smashed into the cruiser.

The jaws of life were needed to cut Constable Sparrock out of his vehicle and then he was rushed to the hospital. Constable Sparrock was forced to retire early from the police force due to the injuries suffered in this collision.

Michael Smitiuch and Peter Cho were trial counsel for the plaintiff.

McKnight v HMQ et al.

After a five-week trial, a Brantford jury awarded a driver $2.4 million in damages in an incident involving a snowplow. The driver, 37-year-old Greg McKnight of Brantford, was driving home from work westbound on Highway 403 in Hamilton, when a snowplow at the Wilson Street overpass pushed snow and ice onto his car, smashing through the sunroof. McKnight suffered chronic pain and psychological distress.

The two snowplow companies, contracted by the City of Hamilton and Province of Ontario, admitted liability in a case that’s taken nine years to make its way through the courts. On April 20, 2017, the jury awarded $2.4 million to the driver, including $600,000 for pain and suffering damages, $950,000 for loss of income, and $800,000 for cost of care and other expenses.

Peter Cho and Luke Hamer were trial counsel for the plaintiff.

Chiocchio v City of Hamilton et al.

On December 7, 2016, the Honourable Mr. Justice Skarica released his Reasons for Judgment after a trial before him in Hamilton. This action arose from a tragic motor vehicle accident which resulted in the plaintiff (our client) being rendered a quadriplegic. The losses and damages suffered by the plaintiff were considerable. The trial proceeded before Justice Skarica on the issue of liability only. While one of the defendants admitted some fault for the accident, the main issue was whether the City of Hamilton was liable also.

The evidence during the trial established that the intersection in question had a history of accidents and that the City failed to paint the stop line at the intersection despite the recommendation to do so. The visibility at the intersection also became poor the further back that a motorist stopped. In the end, Justice Skarica found the City of Hamilton liable and apportioned fault at 50 percent against the City and 50 percent against the defendant driver. In finding liability against the City, Justice Skarica concluded as follows:

"In my opinion, the evidence establishes that the condition of the intersection with the faded stop line posed an unreasonable risk of harm to a reasonable driver. Accordingly, I find on a balance of probabilities that the City of Hamilton failed to keep the intersection at 5th Concession West and Brock Road in a reasonable state of repair."

Click here to read the complete Reasons for Judgment. (Chiocchio v Ellis, 2016 ONSC 7570 (CanLII))

Peter Cho and Michael Smitiuch were trial counsel for the plaintiffs.

Dabor et al v Southbram Holdings Ltd et al.

On June 3, 2016, a Toronto jury returned a verdict in favour of our clients after three weeks of trial. This action arose from the plaintiff’s fall from a metal stud located above a drop-down ceiling to the floor ten feet below. The plaintiff suffered a comminuted calcaneus (broken heal) and continues to suffer with significant pain.

This was a unique case in that the plaintiff was an independent contractor performing regular work at a warehouse owned and occupied by the defendants' corporations. Neither of the parties had workers’ compensation coverage. It was alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff was the author of his own misfortune and as an experienced contractor he should have performed the work more carefully. In addition, they argued that the plaintiff did not raise any safety concerns with the work he was being asked to perform and that he had in fact completed the same task safely one week before his fall.

Even before this case made it to trial, the defendants had brought a summary judgment motion to try and put a stop to the lawsuit. Peter Cho of Smitiuch Injury Law successfully fought off this motion and the case continued on.

During the trial, we called numerous witnesses, including an orthopaedic surgeon, family physician, specialist pain doctor and a forensic accountant. In the end, the jury found the defendants 38 percent responsible for failing to give clear instructions to the plaintiff, failing to have a safe pathway above the ceiling and failing to provide the necessary equipment for the job. The jury assessed damages at $515,000.00 plus interest and the plaintiffs beat the defendants’ formal offer to settle.

This verdict was significant because it serves as a warning to owners and occupiers of properties that they must ensure they have the right person to do the job and that their premises must be safe for the work intended to be performed.

Michael Smitiuch and Peter Cho were trial counsel for the plaintiffs.

Stilwell v Corning

After six weeks of trial, the jury awarded our client $1.3 million for damages. The verdict was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2014.

The decision can be read by clicking on one of these links:

Stilwell v. World Kitchen Inc. et al., 2013 ONSC 3354

Stilwell v. World Kitchen Inc., et al., 2013 ONSC 5360

Stilwell v. World Kitchen et al., 2014 ONCA 770

Bhatt v William Beasley Enterprises Ltd

After a seven-day trial before a judge alone, a judgment was rendered which awarded our client, an 11-year-old boy who suffered a fractured tibia and fibula, and his family damages of $304,863.26, plus legal costs.

The decision can be read by clicking on this link:

Bhatt v. William Beasley Enterprises Limited, 2015 ONSC 2168

Flammia v Royal Glen Eagle

After a four-week jury trial, the jury awarded our clients $1.887 million in damages and the defendants were found to be 65 percent liable.

The decision can be read by clicking on this link:

Flammia v. Royal Glen Eagle, 2015 ONSC 1465 (CanLII)

Legal Issues

Beaudin v. Travelers Insurance Company of Canada, 2022 ONCA 806

Our client, Michael Beaudin, was rendered a paraplegic after a devastating motocross incident. His automobile insurer, Travelers, denied him access to accident benefits based on their interpretation of a statutory exclusion under the Ontario Off-Road Vehicle Act (“ORVA”).

Travelers claimed that pursuant to s.2(1)5 of Regulation 863 of the ORVA, Mr. Beaudin’s dirt bike was not required to be insured at the time of his incident. Therefore, Travelers denied coverage and took the position that no benefits may be claimed as his dirt bike did not fall under the definition of an “automobile.” This would leave Mr. Beaudin without any benefits to fund necessary treatment and assistive devices despite suffering catastrophic, life-altering injuries.

On behalf of Mr. Beaudin, we fought the denial of benefits. At first, this dispute was argued before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”). The LAT initially agreed with Travelers’ interpretation and denied Mr. Beaudin access to benefits. However, we continued the fight and successfully appealed the LAT decision on reconsideration. The LAT reversed their decision and found that Mr. Beaudin is entitled to benefits.

Travelers did not accept this decision and pursued an appeal before the Ontario Divisional Court, where a panel of three judges considered the matter. On behalf of Mr. Beaudin, we were successful before the Divisional Court, and he was found to be entitled to accident benefits. The Divisional Court’s decision can be found here.

However, Travelers pursued a further appeal, this time before the Ontario Court of Appeal. Recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision, dismissing Travelers’ appeal and finding in favour of Mr. Beaudin. The Court of Appeal’s decision can be found here.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the position of Mr. Beaudin and concluded that his dirt bike satisfied the definition of “automobile” and concluded that the statutory interpretation advanced by Travelers was incorrect. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Divisional Court in finding that Mr. Beaudin was entitled to accident benefits. This decision was a hard-fought legal battle and will make a real difference in our client’s life.

David Schnarr v Blue Mountain Resorts Limited, 2017 ONSC 114

On January 6, 2017, the Honourable Madam Justice Tzimas released an Endorsement arising from a motion brought by the plaintiff to have the defendant’s waiver ruled to be invalid as it offended the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). The plaintiff relied on subsections 7(1) and 9(3) of the CPA which state that consumer rights and warranties under the CPA cannot be negated or varied and that any term or acknowledgement in a contract which purports to do so shall be deemed void.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant, as a supplier of services, failed to provide services of a reasonably acceptable quality in relation to the operation of its ski resort which led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As such, the defendant violated the deemed warranty under subsection 9(1) of the CPA. In addition, the plaintiff argued that the defendant, as an occupier, was negligent and breached its duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act ("OLA"). Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendant wore two ‘hats’ by acting as an ‘occupier’ and as a ‘supplier’ of services and as such, should not be permitted to rely upon their broad and all-encompassing waiver which prevented claims from being advanced arising out of negligence and breach of any and all duties.

This is the first decision from the Court ruling on the interplay between the CPA and the OLA in relation to waivers of liability in the recreational industry. Madam Justice Tzimas noted that this was a novel legal question. The question was whether a defendant may rely upon a broad and all-encompassing waiver to limit their liability when it acts as both an ‘occupier’ and as a ‘supplier’.

In her Endorsement, Madam Justice Tzimas reviewed and considered the history of waiver case law and the foundation and interpretation of both the OLA and the CPA. Madam Justice Tzimas noted that this issue had application on the recreational industries, not only in Ontario, but across the country.

Madam Justice Tzimas concluded that the defendant’s waiver was too broad and all-encompassing such that it offended the requirements of the CPA. Madam Justice Tzimas ruled that by operation of subsection 7(1) of the CPA, a defendant cannot disclaim liability for any breach of the deemed warranty contemplated by subsection 9(1) of the CPA. The defendant’s waiver was read down to exclude protections from any claims advanced under the CPA. The remainder of the defendant’s waiver, as it pertained to negligence under the OLA, was found to be enforceable. In sum, the plaintiff was permitted to pursue two distinct causes of action, a negligence claim, which would be subject to potential waiver defences, and a breach of warranty claim which would not be subject to any waiver.

Peter Cho was counsel for this motion.

The full decision can be read by clicking on this link:

David Schnarr v Blue Mountain Resorts Limited, 2017 ONSC 114 (CanLII)

Dabor et al v Southbram Holdings Ltd et al.

The plaintiffs were successful in defeating the defendants' summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs' claim arose out of a slip and fall incident.

The decision can be read by clicking on this link:

Dabor et al v. Southbram Holdings Limited et al., 2013 ONSC 5425

Whitters v Furtive Networks Inc.

The plaintiffs were successful in defeating the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims based on the expiry of the two-year limitation period. The plaintiffs' claims arose from flooding damage to their home. Leave to appeal was denied by Divisional Court.

The decision can be read by clicking on these links:

Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 3572

Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159

Wilson v Arseneau

The family members of a deceased plaintiff, who committed suicide after her motor vehicle accident, were successful in being added to the plaintiff's lawsuit more than two years after the accident occurred in order to pursue claims under the Family Law Act.

The decision can be read by clicking on this link:

Wilson v. Arsenault, 2012 ONSC 2879

Arbitration Decisions

DiMarco and Chubb

Marilena DiMarco was riding her bicycle on a sidewalk to avoid a street fair. She tried to swerve around a parked van, lost her balance and fell, breaking her hip. Her auto insurer, Chubb, took the position that this was not an "accident" and, therefore, no benefits were payable. We convinced Arbitrator Pressman that she was, indeed in an "accident" because the parked van caused the fall.

Maude and State Farm

We successfully convinced Arbitrator Arbus that Marilyn Maude's injuries met the definition of "catastrophic", and that she was entitled to income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits, as well medical treatment and rehabilitation, all which had been denied by State Farm Insurance.

Batuszkin and TD Insurance

Samantha Batuszkin was denied income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits, as well as rehabilitation treatment by her insurer, TD Insurance. We successfully argued that Ms. Batuszkin required these benefits. TD Insurance then refused to pay her expenses for the arbitration hearing and we were successful in having TD pay her expenses.

Cox and Aviva

Dale Cox fell off a bicycle and sustained a catastrophic head injury. He recalled an unidentified white vehicle sideswiping him, but the van did not stop. There were no witnesses, the police were not called (he did not think that they could do anything), and his wife eventually threw out the only piece of physical evidence: the damaged bicycle. Aviva Insurance took the position that his was not an "accident". We successfully convinced Arbitrator Alan Smith that it was, and Mr. Cox was entitled to accident benefits.

Little and Pembridge

Just prior to arbitration for numerous denials, Pembridge Insurance raised a number of preliminary issues in an effort to thwart Janice Little's attempt to dispute numerous denials by her insurance company. Arbitrator Alves agreed with our position and allowed Ms. Little to proceed to arbitration.


Toronto Office

3280 Bloor Street West Centre Tower

Suite 800
Toronto, ON M8X 2X3

Phone: 416-621-1551
Toll Free: 866-621-1551
Fax: 416-621-1558

Brantford Office

330 West Street, Unit 6
Brantford, ON N3R 7V5

Phone: 519-754-1558
Fax: 519-754-1580

Simcoe Office

16 Norfolk Street South
Simcoe, ON N3Y 2V9

Phone: 519-426-9332
Fax: 519-754-1580

    Free Case Consultation