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 bad outcome is not negligence. The question is whether the professional fell below the standard of a reasonably competent member of their profession, and whether that failure caused a loss you would not otherwise have suffered.
Book My Consultation →A professional negligence claim is subject to the two-year limitation period in section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, and section 5 requires the court to consider whether a proceeding was an appropriate means to remedy the loss.
Suing a professional who got it wrong, and defending one who is accused.
Type to filter, or read the full list below.
Nothing matches that. Try a shorter word, or clear the box to see everything.
Professional negligence occurs where a person holding themselves out as having special skill falls below the standard of a reasonably competent member of that profession, and that failure causes a client or other foreseeable party a loss. The four elements are duty of care, breach of the standard, causation and non-remote damage, and the standard is competence rather than perfection.
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.
Professional negligence is ordinary negligence applied to a person who holds themselves out as possessing special skill. The four elements are the same: a duty of care, a breach of the applicable standard, causation, and loss that is not too remote. What changes is the standard. A professional is measured against the reasonably competent member of that profession exercising ordinary skill and care in the same circumstances, not against the best practitioner available and not against a standard of perfection. Where there is more than one accepted approach, following one of them is not negligent merely because another practitioner would have chosen differently.
Duty is rarely in dispute where a retainer exists, because the professional owes concurrent duties in contract and in tort to the client. It becomes contentious where the plaintiff is not the client: a lender relying on a valuation, a purchaser relying on a report commissioned by the vendor, an investor relying on financial statements prepared for another purpose. In those situations the analysis turns on whether the professional knew the plaintiff would rely on the work for the transaction in question and whether reliance was reasonable, and duty may be limited by the purpose for which the advice was given.
Negligent misrepresentation is the related cause of action most often pleaded alongside. It requires a duty of care arising from a special relationship, an untrue, inaccurate or misleading representation, negligence in making it, reasonable reliance by the plaintiff, and resulting damage. Disclaimers and scope-of-work limitations in engagement letters are directly relevant, since they define the purpose for which the work was produced and often the persons entitled to rely on it.
| Profession | Common allegations | Typical evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Lawyers | Missed limitation period, defective transaction documents, failure to advise of a material risk, conflict of interest | The file, retainer letter, reporting letters, docket entries |
| Accountants | Negligent preparation of financial statements, failed tax planning, missed filing deadlines | Engagement letter, working papers, correspondence with the tax authority |
| Engineers and architects | Design error, inadequate specification, deficient field review | Drawings, specifications, site reports, change orders |
| Real estate agents and brokers | Failure to disclose a material fact, misdescription, conflict of interest | Listing documents, agreements of purchase and sale, correspondence |
| Insurance brokers | Failure to obtain the coverage requested or to advise on a coverage gap | Application, binder, policy, renewal correspondence |
| Consultants and advisers | Negligent advice, negligent misrepresentation, exceeding or misdescribing scope | Engagement terms, deliverables, meeting notes |
In each case the professional's own file is usually the most important document set in the litigation. A client is generally entitled to their file, and obtaining it before commencing a claim is one of the most cost-effective steps available. It establishes what was and was not advised, what instructions were given, and whether the professional's contemporaneous record supports their later account.
Except in cases of obvious error, the standard of care in a professional negligence claim must be established by expert evidence from a qualified member of the same profession. A judge is not expected to know what a reasonably competent engineer, accountant or solicitor would have done. Rule 53.03 requires an expert report to be served in advance of trial containing the expert's qualifications, the instructions given, the nature of the opinion sought, the reasons for the opinion and an acknowledgement of the lawyer's duty to provide fair, objective and non-partisan evidence within their area of experience.
Causation is often harder than breach. It is not enough that the professional erred; the plaintiff must show that the error caused the loss. In a solicitor's negligence case that frequently means proving what would have happened had the advice been given, sometimes described as the case within a case, since the plaintiff must establish the value of the opportunity that was lost. In an accountant's case it may mean proving that a different structure was actually available and would have been implemented. This evidentiary burden defeats a significant proportion of otherwise arguable claims.
Contributory conduct is also live. A client who withheld information, ignored written advice, gave instructions against recommendation or failed to read documents before signing may have their recovery reduced under section 3 of the Negligence Act. Where more than one adviser contributed to the loss, section 1 makes them jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff with a right of contribution between them, and section 5 permits a defendant to add another wrongdoer as a third party.
A complaint to a professional regulator can result in discipline, but regulators are not compensation bodies and a disciplinary finding is not a judgment. If your objective is to recover a financial loss, a civil claim is the mechanism. The two processes can proceed in parallel, and the limitation period for the civil claim continues to run regardless of the complaint.
Damages in professional negligence are measured by comparing the plaintiff's actual position with the position they would have occupied had the professional performed competently. That counterfactual is the heart of the case. Where a solicitor missed a limitation period, the loss is the value of the claim that can no longer be brought, discounted for the risk that it might not have succeeded. Where an accountant implemented a defective structure, the loss is the difference between the tax actually payable and what a competent structure would have produced, net of the cost of implementing it.
Two limits recur. The first is that a plaintiff cannot recover a loss that would have been suffered anyway. If the underlying transaction was going to fail on its own commercial merits, the professional's error did not cause the failure. The second is that the professional is generally responsible only for the consequences that fall within the scope of the duty assumed. An adviser retained to advise on one aspect of a transaction is not automatically liable for every loss arising from that transaction, and engagement letters that define scope carefully are read closely for this reason.
Mitigation applies as it does in any claim. A client who learns of an error and takes no steps to limit its effect, for example by failing to pursue an available alternative remedy or by declining a reasonable corrective proposal, may recover less. Where a corrective step is available, taking it and claiming its cost is usually a better outcome than allowing the loss to compound and arguing about it later.
The two-year period in section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002 runs from discovery as defined in section 5, which includes the requirement that the person knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the loss. In professional negligence that last element does real work. Where a professional is continuing to try to fix the problem, or where the loss will only crystallise if a related proceeding is decided a certain way, the date on which a proceeding became an appropriate remedy may be later than the date the error occurred.
That flexibility should not be relied upon. Discoverability arguments are fact-intensive, expensive to litigate and frequently unsuccessful, and section 15 imposes an ultimate bar fifteen years after the act or omission regardless of discovery. The prudent approach is to treat the earliest arguable trigger as the deadline and to issue protectively where a genuine question exists. Section 22 also permits limitation periods to be varied by agreement in defined business circumstances, which is why a tolling agreement is sometimes the sensible way to preserve a claim while a negotiation continues.
There is a further practical timing point. Most regulated professionals carry professional liability insurance, and the insurer normally controls the defence. Insurers require prompt notice of a claim or of circumstances that may give rise to one. This is generally good news for a claimant, because it means there is a solvent respondent and an experienced counterparty capable of settling, but it also means the claim will be assessed on the evidence rather than on sympathy.
Request the complete file, including correspondence, notes, drafts and, where applicable, docket entries. This is the cheapest and most informative step available and it usually determines whether the claim is viable.
Analyse discovery under section 5, including when a proceeding became an appropriate remedy, and diarise the earliest arguable deadline rather than the most favourable one.
A qualified member of the same profession reviews the file and advises whether the conduct fell below the standard of care. A claim that no lawyer will support should not be commenced.
Establish what would have happened had the professional acted competently. Accounting or valuation evidence is often required in addition to the standard of care lawyer.
Issue under Rule 14, complete documentary discovery under Rule 30 and examinations under Rule 31, exchange expert reports, and negotiate with the insurer. Rule 49 offers shape the costs risk on both sides.
Most professional negligence claims settle, commonly after the exchange of standard of care expert reports, when both sides can see how the case will be presented. Very few reach judgment, and a claimant should plan for a negotiated resolution rather than a vindication at trial.
These claims are expensive to run because they require at least one lawyer and often two. We screen carefully before recommending a proceeding: we obtain the file, analyse the limitation position, form a preliminary view on the standard of care, and test whether causation can realistically be proved. If any of those assessments is negative, we say so rather than commencing a claim that will consume fees and end in a costs award against you.
One further point of practice. Professional negligence claims are often accompanied by strong feelings about how the client was treated, and those feelings are understandable, but they are not a cause of action. The court will assess the conduct against a professional standard, not against the client's disappointment. Framing the claim around the specific act or omission, the standard it fell short of, and the loss it caused produces a far better result than a claim that catalogues every grievance in the relationship.
Where the claim is viable we run it on a phased budget, negotiate directly with the professional's insurer, and reassess at each milestone. We act for claimants and, where there is no conflict, for professionals and their insurers on the defence side. Contact us to discuss advice or work that you believe has caused you a loss.
A negligence claim and a complaint to a regulator are different proceedings with different tests, and a professional can face both at once arising from the same events. Defending a complaint to your regulator sets out how that side runs, and why what is written to the regulator can be used in the civil claim.
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.