skip to main content
Back to Top

Michael S. Teitelbaum

Partner

"Knowledge, expertise, perseverance, consultation and communication are vital tools that achieve desired results. My purpose is to utilize these to empower both our clients and our firm to attain our common goals."
Michael TeitlebaumMichael Teitlebaum

Bio

Michael S. Teitelbaum is a partner at Hughes Amys LLP in Toronto. He is Certified by the Law Society as a Specialist in Civil Litigation. He is Peer Rated as Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished with Very High Rating in Both Legal Ability & Ethical Standards. He has been included in The Best Lawyers in Canada for the specialty of insurance law since 2009. He is listed in the 2015-17 editions of Who's Who Legal: Insurance & Reinsurance, and in the Insurance and Reinsurance chapter of Who’s Who Legal: Canada 2016,  which identify a select group of lawyers with expertise in representing insurance underwriters and corporate insurers, among others, regarding the resolution of insurance disputes. His practice concentrates on civil litigation with particular emphasis on insurance coverage and policy interpretation, on behalf of both insurers and insureds. He also focuses on professional liability, governmental liability, products liability, environmental law, personal injury and defamation. Michael heads Hughes Amys' Insurance Coverage Counsel Group and professional development for the firm, and acts as the firm's knowledge management partner. Michael was the general editor of Butterworths' Canadian Journal of Insurance Law from 2003–07, and is currently a member of the Journal's Editorial Board. He has been the consulting editor of Butterworths' Ontario Insurance Law and Commentary since its inception. The upcoming 2018 and earlier editions contain a current commentary on insurance law that Michael co-authored.

Education

  • Called to the Ontario Bar 1981
  • University of Ottawa Law School, LL.B., 1979
  • University of Toronto, B.A. (Hons.), 1976

Affiliations

  • Member of Law Society of Upper Canada
  • Canadian Bar Association
  • Ontario Bar Association
  • The Advocates' Society
  • Canadian Defence Lawyers
  • Toronto Law  Association
  • Medico-Legal Society of Toronto
  • Defense Research Institute
  • American Bar Association
  • Professional Liability Underwriting Society
  • The Association of Trial Lawyers of America

Accomplishments

  • Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Civil Litigation
  • Peer Review Rated for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability by the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings
  • Listed in The Best Lawyers in Canada in the Specialty of Insurance Law, 2009 to 2014 editions
  • Listed as a leading practitioner in Litigation – Commercial Insurance in 2011 to 2014 Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory
  • Graduated cum laude from the University of Ottawa Law School (1979)
  • Articles Editor, Ottawa Law Review (1978-79)
  • Awarded Carswell Prize for Torts (1977-78)

Papers & Publications

Feb
2017
Noteworthy

Ontario Court of Appeal Finds No Entitlement to Replacement Cost under Fire Policy

In Carter v Intact Insurance Co., 2016 ONCA 917, the insureds sought indemnity for replacement cost and building code upgrades after fire damaged several buildings. At first instance, the Motion Judge found that the policy did not entitle the insu......

Dec
2016
Noteworthy

Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms the Duty to Defend Alleged Consequential Damage

Recently, in Parkhill Excavation Ltd. v. Royal & Sunalliance Insurance Co. of Canada, 2016 ONCA 832, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the motion judge’s finding there was no duty to defend a construction deficiency claim in respect of the installation of septic systems. At first instance, Healey J. had found there was no de-fence obligation as the subcontractor exception to the “Your Work” exclusion did not apply because the subcontractor was a supplier and not a contractor. The Court of Appeal held that because consequential damages were alleged, the Your Work exclusion could not apply, a de-fence was owed, and it was unnecessary to go on to con-sider the Subcontractor Exception to the exclusion.

Nov
2016
Noteworthy

Dirty Windows Help to Clarify Appellate Review of Standard Form Contracts

Just when you thought the judicial approach to the appellate standard of review for Canadian contract interpretation had been addressed, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37 (“Ledcor”) on September 15, 2016. Ledcor has created an exception to the Court’s significant decision in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (“Sattva”), which had held that the appropriate appellate standard of review for con-tract interpretation was the deferential one of palpable and overriding error.

Sep
2016
Noteworthy

The Scope of an Insurer's Duty to Defend an Additional Insured

Two recent Ontario Court of Appeal decisions have, to a considerable extent, clarified the obligations of an insurer that has agreed to provide liability coverage to persons or entities as additional insureds.

May
2016
Noteworthy

The Ontario Court of Appeal addresses the limitation period for claiming defence costs

In Daverne v. John Switzer Fuels Ltd., 2015 ONCA 919, the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of what limitation period applies with-in the context of an insurer’s duty to defend. The successful appeal found that the insured’s claim was barred by the limitation found in the subject liability policy of one year. In rendering their decision, the three-person panel considered an issue that has not been comprehensively addressed in Ontario.

Feb
2016
Noteworthy

Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay): Further Lessons in Policy Language and Interpretation

In Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay), [2015] ONCA 911, the Court of Appeal reversed the motion judge's decision that the "faulty workmanship" exclu-sion applied to both direct and indirect damages. The Court ruled that the motion judge's interpretation of the exclusion was overly broad and that the damage to the insured's prop-erty was covered by the policy whether or not the damage constituted resulting damage from faulty workmanship.

Aug
2015
Noteworthy

The Expanding Scope of the Absolute Pollution Exclusion

The "absolute pollution exclusion" is a standard exclusion clause commonly found in Commercial General Liability ("CGL") policies. It purports to preclude coverage for losses arising out of the discharge or escape of pollutants at or from an insured's premises. The term "pollutant" is commonly defined in CGL policies as including "any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contami-nant, including smoke, vapour, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed".

Apr
2015
Noteworthy

When an additional insured is not so named, what are the consequences?

In Amello v Bluewave Energy Lim-ited Partnership, Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Jus-tice addressed the breach of a covenant to insure. The Court held that an oil transport company should not be able to circumvent its obligation to maintain liability insurance and have its oil supplier added as an additional insured in its liability policy. The Court ap-plied a 50% split of defence costs incurred to date and into the future between these two parties.

Jan
2015
Noteworthy

Issue 1 - No (Insurance) Contract is an Island

In August 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada released Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp. ("Sattva"), a decision hailed shortly thereafter as a "blockbuster" addition to the Court's canon of contract interpretation jurisprudence. The decision deserves our attention for its potential implications for insurance policy interpretation if for no other reason than it will be referenced in every single contract interpretation dispute for the foreseeable future.

May
2014
Noteworthy

Issue 5 - Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. (Lindsay): Lessons in Policy Language

In Monk v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co (Lindsay), Ontario Superior Court Justice Koke summarily dismissed an action against the insurer, Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co. ("Farmers' Mutual"), and the broker, Muskoka Insurance Brokers Ltd. ("Muskoka Insurance"), by applying a plain and simple reading of the policy's "faulty workmanship" exclusion.

Publications of Note

  • Commentary on insurance law in Ontario and other jurisdictions in Ontario Insurance Law & Commentary, 2004 – 2015 with various co-authors
  • "Interpreting Exclusion" – Ontario Court of Appeal decision on interpretation of the pollution exclusion in liability and property policies, O'Byrne v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Co, Canadian Underwriter, November 2014
  • "The Complexity of an Abuse Claim” –  Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal decision on school abuse claim and alleged misrepresentation when entering into the policies, Guardian Insurance Company of Canada v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. John's, Claims Canada, June 2014
  • "Equal or Proportional" – Allocating costs between the insurers of two defendants, Ward v. Dingwall, Canadian Underwriter, May 2014.
  • "External Considerations" – Coverage under an all risks policy, 1422253 Ontario Limited v. Coachman Insurance Company, Canadian Underwriter, January 2014
  • "Clear Language Essential" – Homeowners' insurer's duty to defend a contribution claim, Bawden v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., Canadian Underwriter, October 2013
  • "Limitation Periods May Differ" –Ontario Court of Appeal decision on limitation period in a multi-peril policy, Boyce v. Co-operators General Insurance, Canadian Underwriter, July 2013
  • "Beyond Limits" –  Ontario Superior Court of Justice on limitation period in multi-peril policies, Boyce v. Co-operators General Insurance, Canadian Underwriter, March 2013
  • "Delving Into D&O" –  Ontario Court of Appeal on policy interpretation, Lloyds Syndicate 1221 (Millenium Syndicate) v. Coventree Inc., Claims Canada, February 2013
  • "The Consequence of Policy Language in Recent Case Authority", co-authored with Ryan O'Leary, Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 30, No. 6, (November 2012)
  • "Defence Duo" – Where there is a potential for concurrent liability both the auto and home insurer are obliged to defend an action for personal injury, Huestis v. Dahmer, Canadian Underwriter, November 2012
  • "Recent Developments in Liability Insurance Case Law: The Consequence of Policy Language", co-authored with Ryan O'Leary, and presented on this topic at the RIMS Canada Conference in Saskatoon
  • "Requested and Denied" – Ontario Court of Appeal finds "pleadings rule" also applies to a "demand letter", General Electric Canada Co. v. Aviva Canada Inc., Canadian Underwriter, September 2012
  • "A 'Twist' to Allocation of Defence Costs" – Ontario Court of Appeal addresses how defence costs can or should be allocated before an action has been concluded, Tedford v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, Claims Canada, August 2012
  • "Pushing the Limits" –  Does insurer have duty to finish an environmental clean-up despite exhaustion of policy limits, Kawartha Lakes (City) v. Gendron, Canadian Underwriter, May 2012
  • "Giving Notice" - Ontario Court of Appeal finds that a single policy of commercial insurance can contain separate notice conditions applicable to separate areas of coverage, The Sovereign General Insurance Company v. Walker, Canadian Underwriter, January 2012
  • "Subrogated Action" – In Zurich Insurance v. Ison T.H. Auto Sales Inc., Ontario Court of Appeal addresses control of Subrogated Action, Claims Canada, August 2011
  • "Anything but standard: Ontario Court of Appeal addresses Subrogation under the Standard Mortgage Clause", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 29, No.4, (July 2011)
  • "The Canadian Perspective on Allocation of Defence Costs", co-authored; and presented "Successfully Managing the Allocation of Costs Between Insurers: Applying the Hanis Case", June 2011 - The Canadian Institute's Conference on "Effectively Managing Insurance Claims & Litigation"
  • "Defending Property Vendors", Hector v. Piazza, Canadian Underwriter,  June 2011
  • "Subrogation Rights" – The Ontario Court of Appeal addresses Subrogation under the Standard Mortgage Clause, Claims Canada, December 2010
  • "The Duty to Defend and Obligation to Indemnify in Liability Policies, updated October 2010 , Ontario Bar Association's reprise of its CLE program on "Insurance Law: What You Need to Know"
  • McGrimmon v. Personal: Anomaly or Harbinger? Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 49, (July 2010); and Claims Canada , April 2010
  • "Is Disease Transmission an 'Accident'?", Co-operators Life Insurance v. Gibbens, Canadian Underwriter, March 2010
  • "The 'New' Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario: The Dawning of the Age of Proportionality", The Canadian Institute's January 2010 Conference on Personal Injury Settlements, co-authored with Jason Arcuri
  • Michelin v. Ace INA:  Interpreting the  Employee Benefits Liability Endorsement, Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol.27, No. 2, p. 30, (March 2009), co-authored with Tyler Dellow
  • Hanis v. Teevan, The Ontario Court of Appeal Addresses the Apportionment of Defence Costs, Claims Canada, February 2009
  • "The Duty to Defend and the Obligation to Indemnify in Liability Policies", October 2008 Ontario Bar Association Continuing Legal Education conference entitled "Insurance Law: What you Need to Know", authored and presented
  • "Reconstructing the 'Your Product' Exclusion: When Does It Exclude the Cost of the Insured's Product"'? Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 26, No. 1, p. 16, (January 2008); and Canadian Underwriter, January 2008
  • "When Can a Disease be an 'Accident"? Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 25, No.4, p. 74 (July 2007)
  • "Ontario Court of Appeal Invigorates The "Criminal Act" Exclusion", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 25, No. 3, p. 52, (May 2007)
  • "Punitive Damages Update: A Note by the Editor", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 16 (January 2007)
  • "What to Expect of the Courts" – The Ontario Court of Appeal has hinted it might be willing, given the right fact situation, to extend the doctrine of reasonable expectations to cover unambiguous policy language, Canadian Underwriter, January 2007
  • "The Duty to Defend: What's New?", 2007 Osgoode Hall Law School Professional Development Program's "National Update on Insurance Law and Coverage Disputes", co-authored
  • "SCC Signals shift away from reasonable expectations approach for clear wording", Lawyers Weekly, Vol. 26, No. 24, (October 2006), p. 10
  • "The Reasonable Expectations Doctrine: Signs and Portents", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol.24, No.2, p. 30, (March 2006)
  • "The Reasonable Expectations Doctrine: Are Canadian Courts Ready to Apply it to Find Coverage Where Policy Wording is Unambiguous?" The Canadian Institute's 6th Annual Conference on Managing and Resolving Insurance Coverage Disputes, June 2006, co-authored with Frances Bertucci
  • Bridgewood v. Lombard: What Does "Legally obligated to pay as damages: mean?", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 23, No. 5, p. 86, (September 2005), co-authored with Frances Bertucci
  • "Determining The Duty To Defend: An Expeditious, Non-Extrinsic Exercise", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 23, No. 4, p. 65 (July 2005)
  • "Navigating the Commercial General Liability Policy: Mastering Troublesome Standard Policy Wordings", The Canadian Institute's 5th Annual Conference on Managing and Litigating Insurance Coverage Disputes, June 2005, co-authored with Frances Bertucci
  • "Social Host Liability Update: A note by the Editor", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 23, No.3, p. 48, (May 2005)
  • "Exclusions: The CGL Policy in 2005", Canadian Defence Lawyers Conference, April, 2005
  • "Ontario Court of Appeal Considers 'Pierringer' Agreements'', Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 23, No. 1, p. 15, (January 2005), co-authored with Frances Bertucci
  • Consulting Editor, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Ontario Insurance Law and Commentary 2005, and co-author with Renée Vinett of the updated current commentary on insurance law
  • "Liberty Mutual v. Hollinger: Reinventing Personal Injury Coverage?", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 22, No.5, p. 83 (September 2004)
  • "Product Liability Coverage Issues: An Analysis from the Insurer's Perspective: Insurance Coverage and Practice: The Year Past/The Year to Come,  Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, Professional Development Programme,  March 2004
  • "Constants and Changes: Insurance and E-Commerce in the 21st Century, Client Seminar, January 2004, co-authored with Jamie K. Trimble and Laila J. Brabander
  • "Determining the Duty to Defend: An Expeditions Non-extrinsic Exercise", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 23, No 4, p.65, (July 2005), also published in Canadian Independent Adjuster, Vol. 47, No. 1, p.14 (February 2005)
  • "Insurance Coverage Conflicts: Is There An Alternative To 'Independent Counsel'?", Canadian Independent Adjuster, Vol. 45, No 3, p.10 (June 2003)
  • "Triggering Defence And Indemnity: Alie and the Court of Appeal", Canadian Independent Adjuster, Vol. 45, No 2, p. 15 (April 2003)
  • "Environmental Coverage Issues: Will U.S. Developments Filter Into Canadian Courts", Emerging Trends in Insurance Coverage and Litigation, Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, Professional Development Programme, February, 2003, co-authored with Laila J. Brabander.  Also published, with new content in Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 21, No. 5, p. 57 (October, 2003)
  • "The Incredible Shrinking Absolute Pollution Exclusion", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 12 (January 2003)
  • "Uninsured Motorist Entitled to Sue Tavern", Canadian Independent Adjuster, Vol. 44, No. 5, p. 19 (December 2002)
  • "Statutory Regulations: Private Law Duty of Care", For the Defense, Vol. 44, No. 10, p.56 (October 2002)
  • "When Is An Insured Entitled to ‘Independent’ Counsel?", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 20, No. 5, p. 65 (September 2002)
  • "Overlapping Insurance Coverage and Contribution Between Insurers", Canadian Independent Adjuster, Vol., 44, No. 3, p. 12 (September 2002)
  • "Re-imagining the Highway Traffic Act Limitation Period", Without Prejudice, Vol. 67, No. 1, P. 12 (September 2002)
  • "The Duty to Defend: An Overview", Commercial Litigation, Insight Conference, May 2002
  • "Narrowing the Auto Exclusion", For The Defense, Vol. 44, No. 2, p. 44 (February 2002)
  • "Insurance and Risk Management Considerations For a Changed World", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 1, (January 2002)
  • "Risk Management in a New World", Pulse, Ontario Risk and Insurance Management Society, November 2001 Special Edition
  • "What is Informed Consent in Era of Genetic Testing?", Lawyers Weekly, Vol. 20, No. 34, (January 19, 2001), p.9, also published as "Informed Consent in the Age of Predictive Medicine", Canadian Independent Adjuster, Vol. 43, No. 3, (September 2001), p.4, co-authored with Renee Vinett
  • "Shaking the Foundations of the Duty to Defend, Scalera v. Oppenheim – From an Ontario Perspective", Legal Focus on Property and General Liability Insurance, Vol. 4, No. 8, p.67 (September/October 2000), co-authored with Jamie K. Trimble
  • "Is There Still Insurance Coverage when an Exclusion Applies?", Canadian Journal of Insurance Law, Vol. 18, No. 4, p. 64 (July 2000)
  • "Insurance Coverage for Environmental Claims", Environmental Litigation, The Canadian Institute, April 1993
  • Various articles for Noteworthy, Hughes Amys’ Newsletter.

Presentations of Note

  • CGL Seminar presented at the Insurance Institute of Ontario, in May 1992;
  • The Canadian Bar Association – Ontario, Continuing Legal Education Seminar on Insurance, in January 1993;
  • The Law Society of Upper Canada, Continuing Legal Education Seminar, entitled "The Professional Under Attack", in June 1993;
  • The Canadian Institute, "Insurance Coverage Disputes" Seminar, in May 1994;
  • The Canadian Bar Association – Ontario, Continuing Legal Education Seminar on Civil Litigation, in February 1995;
  • Insurance Institute of Ontario Seminar entitled "Comparing CGL & E & O Policies", in March 1995;
  • Insight Conference, "Commercial Litigation" Seminar, in May 2002.
  • Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, Professional Development Programme entitled 'Emerging Trends in Insurance Coverage and Litigation', in February, 2003;
  • Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, Professional Development Programme, entitled "Insurance coverage and Practice: The Year Past/The Year to Come", in March, 2004.
  • Canadian Defence Lawyers Conference entitled, "The CGL Policy in 2005", in April 2005.
  • The Canadian Institute, "Fifth Annual Conference on Managing and Litigating Insurance Coverage Disputes", in June, 2005.
  • The Canadian Institute, "Sixth Annual Conference on Managing and Resolving Insurance Coverage Disputes, June 2006.
  • Osgoode Hall Professional Development Program's "National Update on Insurance Law and Coverage Disputes", 2007.
  • OBA CLE Conference on "Insurance Law: What you Need to Know", October 2008.
  • The Canadian Institute, "Effectively Managing Insurance Claims and Litigation", June 2011.
  • RIMS Canada Conference, "Horizons:  Quick Hits - Legal Hot Topic Review", September 2012.

BLAWG Posts

Oct
19
2017

Many Thanks to Randy Maniloff for his review of Ontario Insurance Law & Commentary!

On a personal note, I very humbly thank Randy Maniloff of the U.S. firm of White & Williams for his very kind words in his most recent edition of his newsletter, Coverage Opinions, about the latest (2018) edition of Ontario Insurance Law &......

Oct
19
2017

Hughes Amys' own Mini Kohli successful before Ont. Super. Ct. in obtaining security for costs notwithstanding the out-of-province plaintiff having some adverse cost insurance

Many thanks to Bevin Shores for her case note about our Mini Kohli's obtaining a security for costs order in Boudreau v TMS Lighting Ltd., an action arising from a snowmobile accident in which the plaintiff sustained serious injuries. I add my voi......

Oct
19
2017

Ont. Super. Ct. finds insurer does not need to prove vehicle owner knew of vehicle operator's "illegal use" in order for exclusion under section 7.2.2 of the OAP 1 to apply

Many thanks to my partner, Bevin Shores, for preparing the following case note about Ontario Superior Court Justice DiTomaso's decision in Kowaluk v Western Assurance Company about the illegal use provision in the Ontario automobile poli......

Oct
18
2017

Ont. Super. Ct. finds no duty to defend in action in which Hughes Amys' Bill Chalmers represented the insurer

Hearty Congratulations to our very own Bill Chalmers who successfully resisted a motion before Ontario Superior Court Justice Koehnen seeking an order that the defendant insurer was obliged to defend the underlying main and third party claims in B......

Oct
18
2017

Ont. Div'l. Ct. upholds LAT Adjudicator's decision in case where our Shikha Sharma acted for the respondent insurer, and held the appropriate standard of review from the LAT is reasonableness

Many thanks to my colleagues Bevin Shores and Laura Dickson who have been monitoring the recent case law while I've been away. One of the decisions involved our very own Shikha Sharma who was successful before a three-judge panel of the Ontario D......

Oct
07
2017

Ont. Super. Ct. finds no duty to defend additional insured because the true nature of the allegations against it do not arise "solely" out of the operations of the named insured

In Brookfield Johnson Controls Canada LP v. Continental Casualty Company, Ontario Superior Court Justice Jane Ferguson held that the respondent insurer did not have to defend the applicant, an additional insured, under a CGL policy because "the cl......

Oct
06
2017

Ont. Super. Ct., citing s. 263 of the Insurance Act, dismisses auto property damage action against driver of leased vehicle, while finding there were issues requiring a trial of the claims against the vehicle's lessee

In Straight Forward Auto Service Inc. v. Mead, a claim for property damage to a leased vehicle, Ontario Superior Court Justice Gray dismissed the action against one of the defendants on a motion by the third party automobile insurer, Personal Insu......

Oct
06
2017

Ont. C.A. addresses the test for causation and appropriate jury questions and instructions in finding jury's dismissal of medical malpractice action not effected by them

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a 58-page decision in Sacks v. Ross, a medical malpractice action, released on October 5th, 2017, addressed, among other issues, the test for causation, and the question of what are appropriate jury questions and in......

Oct
05
2017

Ont. C.A. sets aside finding of no duty to defend owed by two insurers because of conflict of interest as application was brought by third insurer who would likely benefit from the upholding of that finding, and directs submissions on...

appointment of amicus Further to the previous Blawg post, pasted below, in Reeb v. The Guarantee Company of North America, the Court of Appeal set aside the application judge's finding there was no duty to defend a "BB" gun injury incident becaus......

Oct
03
2017

Ont. Super. Ct. reviews decisions on liability for organized sports injuries in summarily dismissing plaintiff's action for assault by another player against association, coach and managers

In Da Silva v. Gomes, a 37-page decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Shaw summarily dismissed this action against most of the defendants seeking damages as a result of injuries the plaintiff soccer player sustained during a soccer ga......

News

Nov
28
2016

Who's Who Legal: Canada 2016’s list of leading Insurance & Reinsurance counsel.

Congratulations to Michael Teitelbaum on being featured in Who's Who Legal: Canada 2016’s list of leading Insurance & Reinsurance counsel! Michael was lauded for his fantastic “work ethic and integrity” with a client adding ......

Nov
08
2016

Hughes Amys is pleased to announce that LexisNexis Butterworths has just released Ontario Insurance Law & Commentary 2017.

This guide to insurance law in Ontario is now in its thirteenth year. Our Michael Teitelbaum is the Consulting Editor and co-author of the commentary which provides an overview of the principles and key issues in liability, property and life insur......

Aug
16
2016

Three Hughes Amys lawyers have been included in 11th edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada

We are pleased to announce that William (Bill) Chalmers, Richard F. Horak, and Michael S. Teitelbaum have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in Canada 2017 guide under Insurance Law. A listing in Best Lawyers is widely regar......

Jul
08
2016

Michael S. Teitelbaum listed in Who’s Who Legal: Insurance & Reinsurance 2016

We are pleased to announce that Michael S. Teitelbaum has been listed in Who’s Who Legal: Insurance & Reinsurance 2016. Michael was nominated by his peers as one of the world’s leading practitioners in this field. The publication i......

Jul
08
2016

Hughes Amys LLP lawyers receive 2016 Lexpert Ranked Lawyer distinction

Hughes Amys LLP wishes to congratulate William S. Chalmers, Jack F. Fitch, Richard F. Horak, A. Jarvis Scott, Mary A. Teal and Michael S. Teitelbaum on receiving the 2016 Lexpert Ranked Lawyer distinction. Chosen by their peers, this recognition a......

  • Canadian Lawyer - Top 10 Boutique 2017-18
  • The ARC Group
  • Best Lawyers 2017
  • Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2016

© 201​6-17 All rights reserved | Legal Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Accessibility