David Morin

david-morin

David A. Morin, LL.M. C.S., is a founding Partner with Will Davidson LLP. David graduated from the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa in 1992, and was called to the Ontario Bar in 1994. He received an LL.M. from Osgoode Hall Law School in 2005. He has a varied experience in all aspects of civil litigation, and in particular employment law, and its interface with disability claims. David is a former president of the Muskoka Law Assocation, a member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers’ Association, as well as the past Chair of OTLA’s Bad Faith Litigation Group; a member of the Advocates’ Society; and a member of the American Association for Justice. David is a proud and long standing member of the OBA. He has been appointed to, or elected to, Council for more than ten years. He is a past chair of the OBA Audit Committee, and current co-chair of the McMurtry Gardens of Justice Committee, as well as a member of the OBA Strategic Planning Committee. David was appointed a Deputy Judge of the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) in 2003 and is a Certified Specialist in civil litigation

Practise Areas
All areas of insurance-related disputes, inclusive of:

  • Serious Personal Injury;
  • Professional Negligence;
  • Products Liability;
  • Environmental Liability;
  • Municipal Liability;
  • Social Host Liability; and
  • Bad Faith Insurance Litigation.

Contact David Morin for legal issues surrounding insurance or personal injury law – Based in Toronto and Huntsville – (705) 788-3740 or 1 (866) 788-3740.

  • Ontario Bar Association
    Audit Committee, Chair
  • Ontario Trial Lawyers’ Association
    Bad Faith Litigation Group, Past Chair
  • Muskoka Law Association
    Past President

Summary of Caselaw

  • 1047358 Ontario Inc. v. Haliburton Broadcasting Group and Grossman, 2012 O.J. No. 5000
    • Motion for Summary Judgment on a Promissory Note
      Represented the plaintiff corporation following its sale of a radio station to the defendant, Haliburton, pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement, for  the purchase price of $3,250,000.00.  The sale was supported by a promissory note, and a personal guarantee given by the defendant, Mr. Grossman.  The trigger date for payment of the first instalment was the one year anniversary of completion of the sale, which the plaintiff argued had occurred on December 17, 2007.  The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the amounts owing under the terms of the promissory note.During the course of hearing the motion, the defendant challenged the purchase price, and alleged that the purchase had not completed.  The parties agreed to participate in a purchase price adjustment process provided for in the SPA, leading the parties’ accountants to become involved to resolve the dispute surrounding the purchase price.  Following resolution of that dispute on November 14, 2011, the accountants also agreed a further loan remained owing to the plaintiff of $75,220.00.The defendants argued that the first payment with respect to the Promissory Note of $250,000 was to occur with the payment of $75,000 on the first anniversary of the date of completion of the agreement, namely November 14, 2012. Accordingly, the second and third payments as reflected in the Promissory Note would be made on November 14, 2013 and November 14, 2014.The court did not accept the defendants' argument that the SPA did not complete until November 14, 2011. It would be commercially unacceptable to expect that the recipient of the promissory note could wait five years for payment pursuant to that note. The personal defendant was jointly and severally liable for amounts owing under the terms of the promissory note. In addition, the plaintiff was also entitled to judgment against the corporate defendant for the money owed to the parent company.
  • Anderson v. North Waterloo Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, 2012 O.J. No. 4264
    • Motion for production of Schedule B documents
      Represented the plaintiffs in an action against their insurer for breach of contract following a devastating fire loss at their home.  Defendant failed to respond to undertakings, and refused to produce a number of Schedule B documents over which privilege was disputed.  Plaintiff brought motion seeking responses to undertakings, and asking a Judge to review the Schedule B documents for privilege pursuant to Rule 30.04(6).  immediately prior to the motion, the defendant produced some documents, and agreed to respond to certain undertakings.  The motion proceeded largely on the issue of production of the balance of Schedule B documents.Motion granted.  Further Schedule B documents to be produced by the defendant.  Costs awarded in the amount of $6,671.32.
  • 1047358 Ontario Inc. v. Haliburton Broadcasting Group and Grossman, 2012 O.J. No. 2452
    • Motion for stay of proceedings pursuant to an arbitration clause
      Represented the plaintiff corporation following its sale of a radio station to the defendant, Haliburton, pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement, for $3,250,000.00.  The sale was supported by a promissory note, and a personal guarantee given by the defendant, Mr. Grossman.  The defendants failed to make payments under the promissory note and challenged the purchase price.  The SPA set out a dispute resolution procedure regarding purchase price that ultimately required arbitration. The entire agreement was also subject to an arbitration clause.  Some three years after the commencement of proceedings, the defendants moved to stay the action, disputing jurisdiction of the court and seeking to submit the dispute for arbitration. The court found that the dispute regarding the purchase price was resolved by the parties’ accountants, and only issue of payment remained.  There was therefore no live issue for arbitration.  In the alternative, the court should refuse to stay the within action and Summary Judgment motion pursuant to the grounds identified at section 7(2) of the Arbitration Act 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, as amended.  The court dismissed the defendants’ motion.
  • Turner’s Garage v. Schell, 2011 O.J. No. 5759 (O.S.C.J.); 2012 O.J. No. 2157 (O.C.A.)
    • Action against bookkeeper for misappropriation of funds
      Represented the plaintiff in an action against its former book-keeper and her husband for misappropriation of funds.  The defendants delivered a Statement of Defence, admitting to misappropriation, but failed to file the defence and were noted in default.  Immediately prior to the hearing of a Motion for Judgment, the defendants moved to set aside the noting in default and to withdraw a Statement of Defence delivered to plaintiffs, but not filed, and substitute new Statement of Defence. Motion successfully defended.  The court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate continuing intention to defend as they had not promptly taken steps to rectify failure to properly file the defence.  Nor had they provided a reasonable excuse for the delay. The defendants’ appeal was dismissed.
  • Halliwell v. Lazarus et al, 2011 O.J. No. 172 (O.S.C.J.); 2012 O. J. No. 2285 (O.C.A.)
    • Professional negligence action against home inspector and realtor
      Represented the plaintiff purchasers in a negligence action against their realtor and home inspector, following the purchase of their new home, and subsequent discovery of mould.  The action was founded on negligent inspection and negligent misrepresentation.  Following trial, the home inspector was found 50 per cent liable for failure to fully disclose and explain indicators of moisture penetration present at the home; the realtor and plaintiff were 25% liable for failure to carefully review the home inspection report.  The inspector did not explain his concerns about the age of the home or the driveway parging, and how these indicators were relevant to the risk of moisture penetration. This did not meet the expected standard of care for a home inspector.  On appeal, the real estate agent, and the plaintiff, successfully overturned the findings of liability against them, and the home inspector was found 100% liable.
  • Varon v. Hopson, (unreported)
    • Breach of Trust
      Represented the plaintiff in her successful action for breach of trust against a contractor retained to construct her new home.  Ultimately, the contractor abandoned the project when the plaintiff refused to pay additional funds in excess of the agreed contract price to complete the construction.   Contractor was unable to demonstrate that the funds provided by the home owner had been used to construct her home, and not expended on other projects.
  • Hanna v. Abbott, 82, O.R. (3d) 215
    Court of Appeal for Ontario, 2006, with Christopher I.R. Morrison
    Will Davidson LLP
    • Historical sexual abuse action and the relationship between a civil action following a criminal conviction
  • Sulliman v. Vaughan Estate [2003] O.J. No. 4455
    Court of Appeal for Ontario
    • Fraudulent misrepresentation action following the purchase of a home
  • Boness v. Bishop [2002] O.J. No. 2041           
    Ontario Superior Court of Justice
    Bracebridge
    • Municipal liability action
  • Chapeskie v. Lake of Bays (Township) [1999] O.J. No. 2773           
    Ontario Superior Court of Justice
    Newmarket
    • Municipal liability action

  • "How Courts Exercise their Discretion to Order Production of Facebook and other Electronic Documents", Managing and Litigating Disability Insurance Claims Program, Toronto, April 9, 2013, Paper co-written with Joyce M. Chun
  • "Sticks and Stones may Break my Bones but Names Will Never Hurt Me – Or Will They? – Overly Sensitive Employees Alleging Poisoned Work Environments and the Decision in Johnson v. General Motors of Canada Ltd." Disability Claims Management Program, Toronto, September 26, 2013, Paper co-written with Joyce M. Chun
  • "Negotiating with Adjusters Directly:  Why Don't Claims Settle Before They Go to Counsel?", The Canadian Institute's 8th Annual Forum on Personal Injury Settlements, Toronto, January 26, 2010
  • "Persuasion Theory and Understanding Juror Bias", The Ultimate Trial Advocacy Course:  Science and Techniques, The Canadian Bar Association, Fredericton, New Brunswick, November 6, 2009
  • "A Step-by-Step Guide to Discoveries and Examinations of Medical Experts", The Canadian Institute's Litigating Disability Claims Conference, Toronto, October 29, 2008   
  • "Remedies in Revolution:  The Doctrine of Concurrency, Punitive Damages in the Commercial Context, and the Advancement of Economic Deterrence in Canadian Law", Ontario Trial Lawyer’s Association Conference, Toronto, Ontario, April, 2005
  • "Evolving Municipal Liability under the Ontario Building Code Act", Ontario Bar Association's 2005 Institute of Continuing Legal Education, Municipal Law Section, Toronto, February 4, 2005

Partner

Tel: 705.788.3740 x 513
Fax: 705.788.3751
Email: dmorin@willdavidson.ca