Six disciplines. One accountable team. Every client is matched with the right lawyer for their matter.
From courtroom litigation to Fractional GC retainers to international market entry.
Founded on the conviction that the quality of your legal representation should have nothing to do with the size of your retainer.
Two-way referrals, co-counsel access, CPD sessions, mentorship and exclusive events.
Legal updates, firm news, webinar invitations, and award announcements.
Four GTA locations. Walk-in consultations. Weekend appointments.
Free calculators, downloadable guides, and legal checklists, built by our lawyers for real Ontario situations.
A negligence claim is not proved by showing that something went wrong. It is proved by establishing a duty of care, a breach of the applicable standard, and a causal link between that breach and a loss the law compensates.
Book My Consultation →Section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002 gives you two years from the day you discovered the claim to commence a negligence proceeding, with an ultimate fifteen-year bar under section 15.
Four elements, each on a balance of probabilities: that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, that the defendant breached the applicable standard of care, that the breach caused the plaintiff loss on the but-for test, and that the loss was reasonably foreseeable rather than too remote. Failure on any one element defeats the claim.
Tell us briefly what is going on. A lawyer reviews every enquiry and replies within 24 hours on business days.
A lawyer replies within 24 hours on business days. Urgent? Call +1 416 333 6200, answered 24/7. Submitting this form does not create a solicitor-client relationship.
Negligence is the failure to take reasonable care where a duty to do so exists. To succeed, a plaintiff in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice must prove four things on a balance of probabilities: that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the defendant's conduct fell below the applicable standard of care, that the breach caused the plaintiff's loss, and that the loss is not too remote to be recoverable. Each element is independent, and a claim that fails on any one of them fails entirely, no matter how sympathetic the facts.
Duty of care is the threshold question. In many situations the duty is settled by established authority or by statute: an occupier owes a duty to persons entering the premises, a driver owes a duty to other road users, a professional owes a duty to a client. Where the relationship is novel, the court analyses whether the harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct and whether there was sufficient proximity between the parties, and then asks whether any residual policy considerations should negate the duty. Pure economic loss claims, where the plaintiff has suffered financial harm without physical damage, are the category in which duty is most often contested.
The negligence claims that reach the Superior Court cover a wide field. They include property damage from fire, flood or escape of water, defective work and materials, damage caused by adjacent construction or excavation, occupiers' liability claims arising from the condition of premises, negligent misrepresentation inducing a commercial transaction, negligent performance of a service, and claims against inspectors, consultants and other advisers. Each engages the same four elements, but the evidence required to establish the standard of care differs sharply between them.
Standard of care is a question of fact. The benchmark is what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances, adjusted upward where the defendant holds themselves out as having special skill. Compliance with industry practice is strong evidence of reasonable conduct but is not conclusive, and breach of a statutory standard is evidence of negligence rather than negligence in itself, since Canadian law does not recognise a separate tort of statutory breach.
The general test for factual causation is the but-for test: the plaintiff must show that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligence. The test is applied robustly and pragmatically rather than with scientific precision, but it remains the plaintiff's burden. Where a loss would have happened anyway, whether because of a pre-existing condition, a market movement or an independent event, the causal link is broken and the claim fails even though the defendant was careless.
Where several possible causes exist, the analysis becomes difficult. A defendant is not excused merely because another factor also contributed, since a defendant need only be a cause of the loss rather than the sole cause. But where the evidence cannot distinguish between a negligent cause and an innocent one, the plaintiff has not discharged the burden and the claim fails. This is why the investigative work done in the first weeks after an incident, while physical evidence and records still exist, so often determines whether the case can be proved years later.
Legal causation, or remoteness, is a separate filter. A defendant is liable only for damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable. Unusual or indirect consequences, and losses flowing from an intervening act by a third party, may be excluded on this basis. In commercial negligence cases remoteness frequently does the real work, because the plaintiff's actual financial loss is often several steps removed from the careless act.
Proof of causation in anything but the simplest case requires expert evidence, served in accordance with Rule 53.03, which requires an expert report delivered in advance together with a signed acknowledgement of the lawyer's duty to provide fair, objective and non-partisan opinion evidence and to provide such evidence only within the lawyer's area of experience. Lawyer fees are a substantial disbursement and should be budgeted before proceedings are commenced, not after.
Where the parties are in a contractual relationship, the same facts can often support claims in both contract and negligence. Pleading both is common, but they behave differently and the choice affects what is recoverable.
| Issue | Breach of contract | Negligence |
|---|---|---|
| Source of the obligation | The agreement between the parties | A duty imposed by law |
| Standard | As promised, often strict | Reasonable care in the circumstances |
| Measure of damages | Expectation, the position of full performance | Restoration to the position before the wrong |
| Limits on recovery | Remoteness plus any contractual exclusion or cap | Remoteness, and reduction for contributory negligence |
| Effect of plaintiff fault | Mitigation obligation | Apportionment under the Negligence Act |
| Limitation period | Two years from discovery, Limitations Act, 2002 | Two years from discovery, Limitations Act, 2002 |
| Available against non-parties | No, only parties to the contract | Yes, where a duty of care exists |
The practical significance is greatest where a contract limits or excludes liability. A well-drafted limitation clause will normally be expressed to apply to claims in contract, tort and otherwise, which prevents a plaintiff from evading the cap by reframing the claim in negligence. Where the clause is narrower, the framing may determine whether the cap applies at all.
The Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.1 governs how responsibility is divided where more than one person is at fault. Section 1 makes two or more persons whose fault caused damage jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff, while as between themselves each is liable to contribute in proportion to their degree of fault. Joint and several liability means a plaintiff can recover the full judgment from any one liable defendant, which matters enormously where another defendant is insolvent or uninsured.
Section 3 addresses the plaintiff's own conduct: where a plaintiff's damages were caused partly by their own fault or neglect, the court must apportion the damages accordingly. Contributory negligence reduces the award by the plaintiff's share of responsibility rather than defeating the claim. Section 4 provides that where it is not practicable to determine the respective degrees of fault, liability is apportioned equally. Section 5 allows a defendant to add another wrongdoer as a third party for contribution and indemnity.
Occupiers' liability is a common negligence context with its own statute. The Occupiers' Liability Act imposes on an occupier a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons, are reasonably safe. The duty applies to the condition of the premises, activities carried on there and the conduct of third parties. Occupiers can in defined circumstances restrict, modify or exclude the duty by reasonable notice, and lower obligations apply to certain trespassers and to persons who willingly assume risks.
Some negligence claims carry statutory notice periods that are far shorter than the two-year limitation period, including claims against municipalities and certain claims relating to snow and ice on premises. Missing a statutory notice requirement can be as fatal as missing the limitation period, so the applicable notice rules should be checked immediately.
The governing principle in tort is restitutio in integrum: damages are intended to restore the plaintiff, so far as money can, to the position they would have been in had the wrong not occurred. That is a different starting point from contract, which places the plaintiff in the position of full performance. In practice the two often converge, but the difference matters where the plaintiff made a bad bargain, since tort will not compensate for a loss the plaintiff would have suffered regardless of the defendant's conduct.
Recoverable heads commonly include the cost of repair or replacement of damaged property, the diminution in value where repair is not reasonable, consequential losses such as loss of use or business interruption where they are not too remote, and out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred. Pure economic loss is recoverable only within recognised categories, which is why the duty analysis matters so much in commercial negligence claims. Punitive damages are exceptional and require conduct that is malicious, oppressive and a marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour.
Prejudgment interest runs under section 128 of the Courts of Justice Act, and section 130 gives the court discretion to vary the rate or the period, including where a party has unduly delayed the proceeding. Mitigation applies in tort as it does in contract: a plaintiff who fails to take reasonable steps to limit the consequences of the wrong will recover less. Documenting the mitigation steps taken, and their cost, is part of building the damages case rather than an afterthought.
Physical evidence, site conditions, maintenance records and electronic data degrade or are overwritten quickly. Early preservation and, where appropriate, an independent inspection often decide whether the claim can be proved at all.
Determine each potentially liable party, confirm insurance coverage where possible, and check for statutory notice requirements that expire long before the two-year limitation period.
Standard of care and causation are usually opinion questions. An lawyer consulted before the claim is issued shapes how the case is pleaded; an lawyer retained late can only work with the record that already exists.
The statement of claim is issued under Rule 14. Negligence must be pleaded with particulars rather than as a general allegation of carelessness, and any statutory basis such as the Occupiers Liability Act should be identified.
Documentary discovery under Rule 30, examinations under Rule 31, mandatory mediation under Rule 24.1 in Toronto, and Rule 49 offers. Where an insurer is involved, resolution usually follows the exchange of expert reports.
Most negligence actions settle, frequently once both sides have exchanged expert evidence and can see the range of realistic outcomes. Settlement before that exchange is possible but is usually done at a discount reflecting the uncertainty each side is buying out of.
Negligence claims are expensive to prove because they depend on expert evidence. We therefore front-load the assessment: whether a duty of care is arguable, whether the standard of care question requires an lawyer and what that will cost, whether causation can realistically be established on the available record, and whether the defendant is insured or otherwise able to pay. That assessment is delivered in writing with a phased budget before any proceeding is commenced.
We act on commercial and property-related negligence, occupiers' liability and pure economic loss claims in the Superior Court of Justice. We do not promise outcomes and we do not commence claims we do not think should be commenced. Contact us to discuss a potential negligence claim, and do so early, because the evidence you need is usually disappearing while you decide.
Our lawyers offer a initial consultation for most matters. Call, email, or book online. Do not sign anything before speaking with us.
55 University Ave, Suite 1100
Toronto, ON M5J 2H7
2 Sheppard Ave East, Suite 303, Toronto, ON M2N 5Y7
Monday to Friday: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Evenings & weekends by appointment
Related Civil Litigation Pages & Guides
No obligation. We will tell you honestly whether we can help, and what it would cost, before you commit to anything.
A lawyer replies within 24 hours on business days. Urgent? Call +1 416 333 6200, answered 24/7. Submitting this form does not create a solicitor-client relationship.
Contacting us does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Please do not send confidential information until we have confirmed we can act for you. We aim to reply within one business day. Sending this form does not meet any court deadline or limitation period.
If you or a child are in immediate danger, call 911. This form is not an emergency service and is read during business hours. Assaulted Women’s Helpline 1-866-863-0511, Talk4Healing 1-855-554-4325, both open around the clock.
Lexaltico LLP
How Lexaltico LLP handles personal information, under PIPEDA and Ontario law.
When you use a form on this site, email us or telephone us, we collect what you choose to send: your name, email address, telephone number and a description of the situation. Nothing on this site requires you to give more than that.
We collect non identifying technical information when you browse: IP address, browser type, pages viewed and time spent. It is used to understand how the site is used and to improve it. It is not used to identify you.
We do not collect sensitive personal information through this website. Detailed personal and legal information is collected only after a solicitor client relationship exists, through the channels set up for that purpose.
What you send is used to reply to you, to run a conflict check, to assess whether the firm can assist, and, if a retainer follows, to carry out the work.
We do not use your personal information for marketing without your express consent, and we do not sell, rent or trade it. If you consent to receive anything from us, every message carries a way to stop, as required by Canada’s Anti Spam Legislation.
Information given to us in the course of a legal matter is protected by solicitor client privilege. We do not disclose privileged information without your consent, except where the law or a court order requires it.
Non privileged contact information may be shared with the providers who help us run the firm and this website, and with people engaged on your matter such as translators, agents and court reporters. All of them are under confidentiality obligations.
Information submitted through a form travels through third party services in order to reach us by email, and may be processed or stored outside Canada, where it can be subject to the laws of that place. Submitting a form is your consent to that transfer. If you would rather not, telephone us instead.
This site uses cookies to understand how it is used. Advertising cookies are set only if you press Accept. If you press Decline, measurement is switched off for you entirely, nothing further is sent, and anything already stored on your device is cleared. The site works either way.
You can change your answer at any time by clearing this site’s cookies in your browser, which brings the question back.
Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 you may ask what personal information we hold about you, ask us to correct anything inaccurate, and withdraw consent to our use of it, subject to legal and contractual limits. We reply within thirty days or explain why we need longer.
Client files are kept for the period the law and the Law Society require, ordinarily seven years after a matter closes, which reflects limitation periods and the possibility of later proceedings. After that they are securely destroyed or anonymised. You may ask for earlier deletion, subject to those obligations.
If you contact us and no retainer follows, what you sent is retained only as long as our conflict records require, then destroyed.
Privacy Officer, Lexaltico LLP
55 University Avenue, Suite 1100, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2H7
privacy@lexaltico.com
+1 416 333 6200
If you are not satisfied with our answer you may complain to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
Short, and written to be read rather than scrolled past.
This site publishes several hundred pages about Ontario law. They are written carefully, they cite statutes and cases by name, and they are reviewed. None of that makes them advice about your matter. Law is applied to facts, and we do not know yours.
The difference is practical rather than technical. A page explaining that spousal support is usually indefinite after a twenty year marriage is accurate as a general statement and may be wrong about you, because of a domestic contract you signed, a period of separation you have forgotten, or an income that is not what a tax return says it is.
Law also changes. Pages carry a review date where one is relevant. A page reviewed last year may not reflect an amendment made since, and a page about a subject currently before an appellate court may be overtaken between your reading it and your acting on it.
A conflict check must be completed. We act for a great many people and businesses, and we cannot act against a current client or use what we learned from a former one. That check happens before anything else and occasionally means we have to decline.
We must confirm in writing that we are prepared to act. Not every matter is one we can take, and saying so early is better than taking a file we cannot properly serve.
A retainer agreement must be signed. It sets out what we are doing, what we are not doing, who is responsible for what, and how fees work. Until it is signed no relationship exists, whatever has been discussed.
Information sent through a form, or by email, before a retainer is signed is not covered by solicitor client privilege. That is not a policy we chose. It follows from there being no solicitor client relationship for the privilege to attach to.
It can also create a problem for you. If you send us detailed information about a dispute and we are later approached by the other side, what you sent may affect whether we can act for either of you.
So tell us the shape of the problem and leave out the detail: the area of law, roughly when it arose, and whether anything is urgent. That is enough for us to say whether we can help. The documents come after the retainer.
Case results described anywhere on this site are real and are described accurately, and they are specific to their own facts. A settlement at three times the original offer happened because of that employer, that contract and that person’s history. It says nothing about what your matter is worth.
Client reviews are the views of the people who wrote them. We do not offer anything in return for a review, we do not write them, and we do not ask only the clients we expect to be positive.
Calculators on this site produce estimates from the figures you enter. They apply published formulas and they cannot know about the facts that most often change the answer.
The content of this site belongs to Lexaltico LLP or its licensors. You are welcome to read it, print it and quote it with attribution. You may not republish it as your own.
We link to statutes, regulations, court decisions and government pages because a reader should be able to check us. We do not control those sites and are not responsible for them, and a link is not an endorsement.
To the fullest extent the law permits, Lexaltico LLP is not liable for any loss arising from your use of, or reliance on, anything published on this website.
These terms are governed by the law of Ontario and the federal law of Canada that applies in Ontario. Lawyers and licensed professionals at the firm are regulated by the Law Society of Ontario, and marketing on this site is intended to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Every limit on what this website tells you, and every thing it does not do, in one place rather than in small print at the bottom of each page.
Four limits, and they matter in this order.
Everything published on this website is general information. It is not legal advice, it does not take account of the facts of any particular situation, and reading it does not create a solicitor client relationship. Do not act, or decide not to act, on anything here without speaking to a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your own circumstances.
These pages describe the law of Ontario, and of Alberta only where a page says so expressly. They do not describe the law of any other province, territory or country. Law that looks similar across jurisdictions frequently is not.
Each page states the law as at the review date shown on it. Legislation is amended and case law develops. A page accurate when written may no longer be.
These pages describe how a rule usually works. That is not the same as how it applies to your facts. The exceptions are where most real matters live, and a page written for a general reader cannot tell you whether you are inside a rule or inside its exception.
If you or a child are in immediate danger, call 911.
This website is not an emergency service. Enquiries sent through a form here are read during business hours and a reply may take up to one business day.
Open at all hours:
Assaulted Women’s Helpline 1-866-863-0511
Talk4Healing 1-855-554-4325
Kids Help Phone 1-800-668-6868
Using this website, submitting a form, sending an email or speaking to us on the telephone does not make us your lawyers. That relationship arises only when the firm has confirmed in writing that it has agreed to act, a conflict search has been completed, and a retainer has been signed.
Do not send confidential or sensitive information through this website or by email until we have confirmed in writing that we can act for you. Information sent before that point is not treated as confidential and may prevent us from acting for you, or for someone else, in a connected matter.
We aim to reply within one business day. Contacting us does not guarantee a reply within any particular period, does not oblige the firm to act, and does not stop, extend or satisfy any limitation period, filing date or court deadline.
Our line is answered 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Outside office hours calls are taken by our intake service, who record your details and pass them to the firm. A lawyer responds during the next business day, or sooner if the matter is urgent. Answering the telephone is not the same as giving legal advice, and no relationship arises from that call.
Lexaltico LLP is regulated by the Law Society of Ontario under the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8. All lawyers practising in Ontario through the firm are members in good standing.
Alberta matters are handled by lawyers licensed with, and in good standing with, the Law Society of Alberta. A lawyer licensed in Ontario is not thereby licensed in Alberta, and the reverse is also true.
Immigration consulting is provided by Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultants in good standing with the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants under the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act, S.C. 2019, c. 29, s. 292.
Not everyone at the firm is a lawyer.
Each page and biography states which applies. Ask at the outset who will handle your matter and under which licence.
We serve clients in thirteen languages. Every page of this website is written and published in English. Where anything is provided in another language, the English version governs in the event of a difference. If you need an interpreter, tell us when you book and we will arrange one.
The complimentary 15 minute initial assessment is a brief introductory conversation. It does not include a review of your documents and does not constitute legal advice.
The firm charges a fee for substantive consultations, including in civil litigation, criminal defence and immigration matters. The firm may waive that fee at its discretion. Any fee is disclosed in advance and credited in full toward your account if you retain the firm.
Where we refer a matter to another firm, including through LexKonnect, we comply with Rule 3.6-6.1 of the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Any referral fee is set out in the Law Society’s standard referral agreement, signed by you before the referral proceeds, and no fee is payable to us unless and until the receiving firm has been paid for its work. You are never obliged to accept a referral and are free to retain any firm you choose. No referral arrangement affects the independent professional judgment of any lawyer at this firm.
They produce estimates from what you type and cannot know the rest. They do not account for the terms of your contract, statutory exceptions, or the discretion a court will apply. Do not make a decision on a number produced by a calculator.
Any outcome described happened on its own facts, before its own decision maker, under the law as it stood at the time. Past results do not predict or guarantee the result of any other case.
Reviews shown here are written by third parties and published on platforms we do not control. Each describes one person’s experience of one matter. They are not a promise, a prediction or a guarantee about any other matter.
This site links to regulators, courts, government sources, professional associations and social platforms, all operated by others. We do not control them, we are not responsible for their content or accuracy, and a link is not an endorsement.
Failure to start a proceeding within the applicable limitation period may permanently bar your claim. In Ontario the general period is two years from discovery under the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B. Shorter periods apply to many claims. Seek advice promptly. Nothing on this website extends a limitation period.
We aim to meet the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and WCAG 2.1 Level AA. If any part of this site prevents you from reaching us, telephone +1 416 333 6200 or write to hello@lexaltico.com and we will provide the information in another format, at no charge.
Content on this website is © Lexaltico LLP. It may be read and printed for personal reference. It may not be reproduced, republished or used commercially without written permission.