David Morin is a founding Partner with Will Davidson LLP. In addition to a challenging litigation practice, David has been privileged to hold many external titles: Former President of the Muskoka Law Association, Chair of the Ontario Bar Association Audit Committee, as well as Chair of the Paralegal Regulation Sub-Committee for the Ontario Bar Association.
David Morin - Partner
David has been certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Civil Litigation and, most recently, was recognized for excellence in the legal community by Lexpert (2016).
WATCH NOWDavid is a member of the Ontario Bar Association, Advocates’ Society, and a proud member of the American Association for Justice. Excellence matters and, in 2003, David was appointed a Deputy Judge of the Superior Court of Justice for the Province of Ontario.
David’s practice focuses on civil litigation and, in particular, personal injury, product liability, municipal liability, and professional negligence claims. David also quarterbacks complex property loss subrogation claims on behalf of insurers, stemming from significant building envelope (construction) failures. As always, David remains happy to review any aspect of theses claims on behalf of insurers, to provide whatever assistance he can.
Publications/ Speaking Engagements
- September 2016 (Speaker) : The Will Davidson LLP Products Liability Litigation Seminar, “A Comparison of Products Liability Laws in the United States and Canada”.
- January 2016 (Speaker): The Canadian Institute: 22nd Annual Conference on Provincial/ Municipal Government Liability.
- July 2013:Chair and Moderator of the Canadian Legal Track for the American Association for Justice Convention in San Francisco.
SHOW MORESHOW LESS
Notable Cases
- 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. 2773Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Newmarket
Municipal liability action.
SHOW MORESHOW LESS