Who Are We? : Significant Successes
Trials, Applications, Appeals and Motions are four types of court and tribunal proceedings which require significant preparation, expense and expertise. The following are some examples of our significant successes in those four types of proceedings:
R. v. Lindberg (Sentencing - December 15, 2011): Our client was granted a conditional sentence (i.e. no incarceration) despite pleading guilty to deflaction of $312,000. She suffered from a mental disorder (i.e. gambling addiction) and due to her subsequent good conduct, she earned mercy.
Nasir v. Kochmanski (Motion - October 28, 2011): Defendant moved to add our clients' grandmother and uncle despite the limitation period and the impropriety of seeking financial contribution from any other person. We succeeded.
Sonia Bains v. RBC General Insurance (Appeal - September 2010):
The appellate tribunal awarded our client the highest expense award ever made on appeal for her success which gave rise to important legal principles which would help resolve serious claims of other accident victims.
Read More
Sonia Bains v. RBC General Insurance (Appeal - June 2010).
On appeal it was found under §2(2.1) of Bill 198 that it is absurd to refuse to rate impairments to determine catastrophic status on the grounds that such impairments are not permanent or stable two years post collision, or to refuse to rate separately or within a broader classification the neurologic' and chronic pain impairments because there are separate ratings for mental and behavioral or orthopedic impairments. The decision goes beyond Desbiens v. Mordini (2004) in allowing innocent accident victims to stack impairments for neurologic, mental and behavioral, chronic pain and orthopedic without offending the rule prohibiting double counting. Demonstrative Advocacy was used in this Appeal.
Read More
Nevins v. Fiorini et al (WSIAT Trial - April 2010).
The insured defendant (also a primary tortfeasor) was found not to fit any of the exceptions to the "abuse of process" doctrine. Demonstrative Advocacy was used in this trial.
Read More
Mirella Cappella v. Premier Fitness Clubs Inc. (Motion - March 2009).
After the 7th defense counsel was appointed, and the Plaintiff’s civil contempt motion was adjourned with costs the whole action settled on the return of the contempt motion after submissions began.
See the reasons. Demonstrative Advocacy was used in this motion to show the chronology of events in the context of the law on civil contempt.
Demonstrative Advocacy: Understanding and Constraining Partiality in Adjudication - Publication & Lectures[2008-2009].
Ground breaking text authored by Hassan Fancy and published by Lexis Nexis on Constraining Bias in Litigation. The publication was followed by lectures in Canada,
India and the United States which continue.
See www.demonstrativeadvocacy.com
Treyes v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation [2007] O.J.No. 2772.
Precedent of global significance on Problem Gambling Litigation. Demonstrative Advocacy was used in this unprecedented action.
Read More or See "Advocacy Methodology" for sample Demonstrative Advocacy page.
Fancy Barristers Professional Corp. v. Sonitek Ltd. [2007] O.J.No. 572.
Successful breach of contract Trial. Demonstrative Advocacy Graphp Theory was used effectively.
Read More or See "Advocacy Methodology" for Demonstrative Advocacy Graph.
Bousfield v. Marshall [2002] O.J.No. 737. Catching a liar in Trial.
Read More
Harris & Harris v. Midas Capital et al (2000) Court File No. 98BN8169 (S.C.J). Revenge of the documents. Lengthy assessment hearing on behalf of two public companies who were overbilled.
Read More
Kordish v. Innotech Multimedia Corp. [1999] O.J.No. 1734. Tax Precedent. G.S.T. requires goods or services.
Read More
Dawson v. Wong [1998] O.J.No. 4649. Unusual relief obtained against an insurer.
Read More
Dhuman v. Canada [1995] I.A.D.D. 1060. Immigration Precedent. The minister's unreasonable speculation.
Read More
