Civil litigation

Headed to court? Think you should be heading there? Let’s talk!

We have represented clients at all levels of court regarding a variety of legal issues!

Bakerlaw’s expertise in disability-related issues informs our work on lawsuits against long-term care facilities, group homes, hospitals and other service providers. We assist clients with claims that address quality of care as well as physical harm to patients.

Bakerlaw represents clients against insurance companies in a range of contexts, including entitlement to long-term support due to disability and losses arising from motor vehicle accidents.

Bakerlaw’s can assist clients in court cases on a range of issues including negligence, breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, libel and defamation, actions against government for breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (link).

Contact us (link) to learn more.

Related Cases

  • Canadian National Railway v Seeley

    Canadian National Railway v. Seeley, 2013 FC 117: In this case we successfully argued on behalf of our client that she had experienced family status discrimination because her employer failed to accommodate her childcare responsibilities. This decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal (2014 FCA 111).

  • Longueépée v University of Waterloo

    Longueépée v. University of Waterloo, 2019 ONSC 5465: This case challenged an admissions decision at the post-secondary institution. At the HRTO, in Longueépée v University of Waterloo, 2016 HRTO 686, the Tribunal ruled against our client but the Divisional Court agreed that the admissions procedure failed to accommodate our client’s disability in its consideration for grades earned while unaccommodated at a different school. 

  • Ontario Human Rights Commission v Simpson-Sears

    Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 SCR 536; The Supreme Court of Canada found that it is not necessary to prove that discrimination is intentional to find that there has been a violation of human rights. A neutral rule can have discriminatory effects. Where a rule has a discriminatory effect, a duty to accommodate will be triggered 

  • Bhinder v CN

    Bhinder v. CN, [1985] 2 SCR 561; Mr. Binder, a member of the Sikh religion who wears a turban was fired because he refused to wear a hard hat. The Supreme Court of Canada found that there was no duty to accommodate where there is a bona fide occupational requirement. While the hart hat requirement had a discriminatory effect on Sikhs; this requirement was a bona fide occupational requirement and was therefore not discriminatory. 

  • Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia

    Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143; the Supreme Court of Canada held that a rule which restricts an entire class of persons from certain forms of employment, on the grounds of a lack of citizenship status and without consideration to educational and professional qualifications, infringes section 15 (equality rights) of the Charter 

  • British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)

    British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 SCR 868; The Supreme Court of Canada held that that it was discriminatory to cancel the license of a person with a visual disability 

  • Lovelace v Ontario

    Lovelace v. Ontario, 2000 SCC 37, [2000] 1 SCR 950; At that time, this was the leading decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on section 15(2) of the Charter. This section protects affirmative action programs from the equality requirement under section 15(1) of the Charter. The Court held that the distribution of casino profits to a select group of Indigenous Peoples was not discriminatory.  

  • Harper v Canada (Attorney General)

    Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 SCR 827; the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada Election’s Act spending limits on third-party election advertising infringes section 2(b) of the Charter. This section deals with the fundamental freedoms in relation to thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. The Court ruled that while section 2(b) of the Charter was infringed, it was saved  by section 1 of the Charter, and that the limits imposed under the Act were justified as it helped to protect fairness in elections.

  • Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

    Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 SCR 350; The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the detention of a permanent resident or foreign national deemed to be a threat to national security, infringes section 7 (life, liberty, and security of the person) of the person 

Related Articles