• homeslide-220513-04 FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • homeslide-220513-03 FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • homeslide-220513-02 FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • homeslide-220513-01b FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

The Laywers

‘FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education’

The information provided below is not legal advice, and it may not apply in every situation. FAIR is not a legal service and we do not recommend particular lawyers or firms. We do not provide legal advice. This page is for information purposes only.


We are hearing about more and more cases where the time limitations for filing have lapsed due to a failure by a plaintiff’s legal representative to meet deadlines. Claimants should stay informed of what is happening with their files and forms and ask the questions about filing dates and limitations. Please see some of the decisions and articles listed at the bottom of this page for details

More information on choosing a lawyer or if you have issues with your legal bill here.


FAIR does not accept responsibility for comments, opinions, statistical information etc. associated with the links listed below. Any opinions, points of view, etc. are not necessarily shared by FAIR.




Toronto lawyer serves claim with Instagram

When Toronto lawyer Tara Vasdani could not track down a defendant she was looking to serve, she turned to Instagram.


Comments are closed.

Shady Billing: Closing the Hall of Shame

Only “fair and reasonable” fees and disbursements can be charged by lawyers to their clients. This rule is uncontroversial, and applies across the country. Nevertheless, the following billing practices are used by some Canadian firms, and not clearly forbidden by regulation:[1]


Comments are closed.

FAIR letter to LSUC re how low can a defense lawyer go to save insurer $$$

UPDATE: On January 22 2018, we did hear from LSO that they are reviewing our complaint

On behalf of Ontario’s vulnerable and injured car accident victims who bring their insurance cases to hearings in Ontario’s justice system, FAIR asks that you investigate the behavior of Mr. Harry P. Brown as documented in the attached FSCO decision S.P. and RBC General (now Aviva) 5453. The FSCO arbitrator’s words lead us to believe that this case calls into question whether Mr. Brown’s conduct meets the standards and expectations of the LSUC/LSO and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

FAIR complaint to LSUC Jan 17 2018

Read the decision  S.P. and RBC General A16-000329

Michelle Mandel’s Sun article http://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-shameful-attempts-by-auto-insurer-to-fight-paying-a-teen-with-catastrophic-injury

Comments are closed.

Auto insurer defence lawyer says injured woman “too pretty to be sick”

Read the full decision S.P. and RBC General A16-000329

Ms. Aliza Karoly for S.P.

Mr. Harry Brown for RBC General Insurance Company

At an earlier time in the Applicant’s claim, the Insurer’s lawyer stated the “Applicant looked too pretty to be sick.”…

The Insurer questioned the Applicant as to some photographs that she was in.  As part of the Insurer’s evidence, it produced pictures of a Toronto Sun Sunshine girl posing in a costume.  The Insurer asked the Applicant how she was able to pose for pictures as part of a Sunshine Girl photoshoot while she claimed to be suffering from the medical issues.  The Applicant replied much to the surprise of Insurer’s counsel that it was not her in these pictures, it was another girl.  At the same time that this revelation took place, it was noted that Insurer’s counsel, Mr. Brown, swore an affidavit affirming this Sunshine girl to be the Applicant when it was proven to be someone else.  This photo and others that were not of the Applicant were sent to many witnesses as evidence, when in fact it was not the Applicant in the pictures.[4]….

Further, the conduct and borderline harassment demonstrated by the Insurer as it related to some witnesses that the Insurer called is rarely ever seen.  The Insurer had its investigator attempt to serve witnesses in a hostile and confrontational manner, including threatening to have witnesses arrested if they did not comply with their summons.  In addition, the Insurer used photocopied pre-signed summonses to serve individuals, which did not afford an Arbitrator or FSCO the opportunity to oversee who was being summonsed and why.  It left the Insurer with unchecked power in which it overstepped its bounds on numerous occasions.  Insurer’s counsel misled the court when requesting a bench warrant and stated before the court that a witness failed to attend this Hearing when in fact Mr. Brown knew that this was false.


Comments are closed.

LSO approves working group’s recommendations

Recommendations adopted by a recent Law Society of Ontario (LSO) convocation — and provided to the government —will make contingency fees and how they are structured more “consumer friendly,” Hamilton personal injury lawyer Andrew Spurgeon tells AdvocateDaily.com.


Comments are closed.