The Centennial Building (Former Whitby Courthouse)

The main area of practice of  Miskin law offices is civil litigation, which is basically law suits involving claims for money.  Murray Miskin  has over 30 years of experience acting for parties claiming in civil cases brought in the Ontario Courts.  Our work is mainly in the Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice in bringing civil claims for money damages.  We do not handle Small Claims Court cases. Litigation is an expensive process and so if you hire us to defend a law suit you will be billed regularly at hourly rates. Law suits of under $10,000 are handled by the Small Claims Court where lawyers are not necessary. In 2010 that increased to $25,000.  In our experience small claims are not economically handled with lawyers involved and we do not generally act in Small Claims Court. Often insurance is available to cover claims that may be brought against you and we will, when consulted, look into that. If you wish to bring a claim we usually bill when we recover money in the claim.  Most of our clients are regular people, without a lot of money, who can not afford the luxury of litigation. Sometimes litigation is a necessity. When it is appropriate we will advise you  to settle and how to keep costs under control during the process. While we are a small community firm, most of our litigation is fought against the largest law firms in Canada and we do not hesitate to take on a difficult claim we believe to be reasonable and just.
CONTINGENCY FEES AND CLASS ACTIONS:
More often than defending law suits we act on behalf of individuals and small business people suing to collect money due to them. Often we can arrange to collect our fee from the proceeds of the law suit when it is complete.  In personal injury cases we normally do not charge a fee until a successful recovery is made on our clients’ behalf.  This means anyone with a good personal injury claim with significant damages can come to us and not be restricted by lack of financial resources.  Sometimes this approach may not be appropriate in risky cases where we do not believe success is assured. Usually we will advise clients not to proceed with high risk claims which may end up costing more than they can achieve. We ask clients to pay the expenses of a law suit we bring on their behalf through retainers from time to time as needed and if they are able to pay.  For large cases involving many people with a claim against one company or individual who has harmed many or the maker of a particular harmful product such as the drugs Vioxx, Bextra, Yaz, Yasmin or Asbestos injury we work exclusively on contingency fee.  These cases involve all risk and expenses being with the lawyer who bears the risk of carrying a speculative case.  For this type of case known as Mass Tort Litigation  we are now charging contingency fees of one third of recovery which we share with other lawyers working with us.  Contingency fees are now legal in Ontario and regulated by the Law Society of Upper Canada. Feel free to arrange a no cost and no obligation appointment to discuss litigation matters before you proceed.  Our first free consultation will be for as much time as necessary to understand and provide an opinion on the case and is not necessarily the usual first half hour as many lawyers offer.  We are frequently consulted by individuals including lawyers for second opinions on law suits which are in progress or to review settlement proposals.
SETTLEMENT OR TRIAL:
Usually it is better to settle on the best terms rather than go through the stress, expense and often years it takes to get a case to trial.  Trial results are uncertain and there is much risk involved especially where there is a jury.  Court rules related to costs and offers make the risk much higher to the point where few cases actually go to trial.  When it appears appropriate we encourage settlement through negotiation or mediation.  When settlement can not be achieved we consider the alternative process of arbitration which is usually cheaper, faster and less uncertain than court. Some cases just can not settle out of court and when that happens, we, unlike some litigation  lawyers, are not afraid to take a case to trial even if it is risky.  Insurers and their lawyers know that we do not back down when claims are denied and usually we can find a reasonable settlement. Our  good reputation is based on years of litigation including considerable trial experience, positive client results, knowledge of the court system and the persistence which does lead us sometimes to trial and to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Murray H. Miskin
Murray Miskin is widely recognized as a Canadian pioneer in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution both for mediation and arbitration.  He is recognized by the legal profession nationally through a leadership role in the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), and for his expertise in the fields of Insurance law, Civil Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Murray served for two years as Chair of the CBA’s National Sections Council and was on the CBA Board of Directors and Finance Committee from 2007-2009.  Through his long involvement with the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (now called the American Association for Justice or AAJ) Murray is well known among U.S. personal injury lawyers. He interacts regularly with the AAJ leadership and is regularly contacted for advice on Canadian law and referrals from American lawyers. He also belongs to the Inter American Bar Association (IABA) where he also works with lawyers in Central and South America.

Michelle E. Brown

Our Associate lawyer Michelle Brown is a member of AAJ and is active in the AAJ’s minority caucus. Our lawyers belong to, and are both active in the Canadian Bar Association and its provincial branch the Ontario Bar Association, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, the Durham Region Law Association and the Advocates Society.

Put our experience and network of contacts to work for you.
If you wish to consult us on a litigation matter please call the office to arrange a telephone initial case review and then schedule an appointment for a free first meeting to discuss your case in detail.

In Canada all claimants (outside of Quebec and Saskatchewan) had to decide before June 30, 2010 whether to accept the class action as the basis for their compensation or to opt out and seek compensation based on their individual case. We advised each of our clients and guided them through that decision making process.  Read our article at this website titled: “Attention Vioxx Clients”. If you have a serious Vioxx injury (to yourself or a family member) you need legal advice right away and should have a lawyer to represent you and help you decide what to do.  If you are represented by another law firm you should have checked by now with that law firm about your options and their advice for your claim. If you have done nothing you are part of the Class Action and will have to accept the compensation that it may or may not give you.  If you opted out by the June 30 deadline you may get more compensation depending on your case but you also will face a greater risk.

At some point a business decision will be made by Merck to settle claims outside the US, and Canada may or may not be early on Merck’s settlement agenda.  Merck can not be forced to settle and the road to trial is still a long one. Extreme patience is still required. The following paragraphs set out the history of the Vioxx case for Canadians until now:

Vioxx was a very popular, profitable and highly promoted anti-inflammatory drug manufactured by Merck and rushed to market in 1999 to compete with Pfizer’s similar drug Celebrex. When evidence, originally suppressed by Merck, came out about cardiac dangers the drug was recalled from the market September 30, 2004. At that time our firm sought out individual clients to make claims against Merck. Many of these claims are for fatal incidents where we represent the families of Vioxx users who died after using the drug. Across Canada a number of “class action” claims were issued by lawyers. Most of those lawyers who each act for a “representative plaintiff” are united in a national coalition with the primary court proceedings in Toronto, Ontario. We have worked with the class action lawyers to assist in showing the strength of the claims by Canadians related to Vioxx, but our focus has been on individual clients rather than participating directly in the class action Court proceedings in Canada. Claims were brought for some of our clients in the New Jersey court but those claims were not allowed to continue as a term for settlement of American claims.
Claims against the manufacturer Merck were disputed hotly and there were mixed trial results in the United States before a settlement was reached. Some cases were in the US Federal Court and some were tried in individual state courts. There are a number of unusual situations which were not considered when the American settlement was agreed upon and there is some fine tuning to do before it is completed. This stage is likely to end before settlements in Canada and other countries will be considered by Merck. There has been a settlement this year of an American class action case to reimburse those who paid for Vioxx prescriptions but that does not affect individual injury claims. In the United States injury claims are not dealt with by class action. The Canadian class action in Ontario for people injured by Vioxx use was certified in 2008 but that was delayed by appeal in Ontario and to the Supreme Court of Canada until late 2009. Merck continues efforts to delay the proceedings until they are ready to talk. We expect to be in direct talks with Merck when that time comes. We are hoping this will still happen this year, 2010 and we are continuing our work towards that with our file preparation. With Merck there are a huge number of claims all over the world and the first three years after recall of the drug were ones where Merck denied any responsibility for the effects of Vioxx. This denial remains in effect in Canada but can not logically continue as U.S. cases settle. Recently, in Australia,  Merck lost the first Vioxx trial outside of the United States. We are still looking at pursuing individual settlements for many of our clients with others being part of a class action settlement. We will again be contacting each of our clients when it looks like there will be a Canadian settlement. To date there have been no developments related to possible Canadian settlement and our approaches to the company have been rejected as premature. An appeal of class action certification was finally dismissed.  On October 22 the Supreme Court of Canada put an end to Merck’s attempt to stall the class action due to inter-provincial conflict and confirmed the rejection of a separate Saskatchewan national claim by that province’s appeal court.  The Ontario Divisional Court finally decided to dismiss Merck’s last appeal and deny further leave (permission) to Appeal in a December 7th decision by Madam Justice Denise Bellamy. That decision was not reported in the news and there is still little general knowledge that certification appeals are over.  On February 10, 2010 Mr. Justice Cullity updated the procedural orders related to the certified class action and we now have until June 30 to deliver notices for individual claims opting out of the class action.  This order was formally issued by the Court on March 5, 2010.  Only one newspaper notice was ordered to be given which was in the Globe and Mail newspaper February 27, 2010.  Most people with claims still have no idea that the Class Action is proceeding and that an important decision must be made and filed for individual cases by the end of June 2010.

We are working on our own strategy for settlement and for the procedure for advancing individual claims now that the class action certification is complete.  The lawyers for Merck in Canada appear to have clear instructions to simply continue to focus on delaying the class action proceedings in court for now.  We are proceeding with several cases opted out of the class action and are working on issuing court claims in several provinces. Some of our discussions and our strategy mut be kept confidential as this website is accessible to anyone. You may still contact our firm for representation now if you believe you have a Vioxx injury claim for yourself or a family member. Murray Miskin, July 1,2010

A QUOTE: “We try to remember that medicine is for the patient. We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been.” George W. Merck II (1935)

People can be injured without car damage.

1. Any car accident is a traumatic event.  The first thing to do is make sure that you and everyone in your vehicle is okay and that there is no danger of fire or explosion that would make it necessary to immediately exit the vehicle.  If someone is unconscious or disoriented try to keep them awake until medical help arrives.  If there is no apparent danger of fire or explosion injured people should remain in the vehicle. If a person has difficulty moving it may cause further injury to move them without adequate precaution. This is particularly true for neck injury. Call 911 from a cell phone unless help is already there (or you are certain it is on the way) and report any suspected injuries and other needs.

2.  Identify the other vehicles immediately by making a note of the license plates. This is important in case someone leaves the scene before police arrive.  You should always have a pen and paper in your vehicle to write down information. If you have a camera of any type use it to take photos of the cars, people involved and the accident scene. Exchange information with the other drivers including vehicle ownership and insurance policy numbers.  Get contact information for witnesses on the scene. Do enquire into the well being of others involved and show your sympathy for the other people involved even if you are angry or believe them to be at fault. Avoid expressing hostility towards persons you believe to be at fault. If you are at fault you can say you are sorry it happened but do not explicitly admit fault for the accident. Your insurance company will deal with that issue if claims are made against you.  Do not argue with police if you are charged or if they fail to charge someone else you believe should be charged.  If you are charged consider your options during the time limit provided on the ticket.  A guilty plea is considered an admission that can be used against you in a civil case and a conviction will affect your insurance rates and driver’s license.

3.  If injured seek medical attention as soon as you know you have any injury. Injuries felt as minor on the scene can get much worse over the next 24-48 hours.  Many people do not notice any injury until hours or even a day after the accident.  Go to a Hospital Emergency ward, a walk in clinic or your family doctor as soon as you can. Do not wait more than a day to see your family doctor.  If you can not be seen soon by your own doctor go to a walk-in clinic or hospital emergency department and then see your own doctor as soon as you can. When you first seek medical attention be sure to mention the accident and what happened to you in it. You will likely be asked about seat belt use with your answer recorded.  If you were not wearing a seat belt your damages entitlement is likely to be reduced. Be ready for questions about seat belt use, vehicle speed, airbags and any alcohol or drug consumption.

4. Report the accident to your own insurance company as soon as possible after getting necessary medical attention and if you have a broker call them first and they will assist you in reporting and dealing with the claim.  Look to your own insurance company to deal with damage to your vehicle and to provide “No Fault Accident Benefits”.  Ask for a set of no fault benefit claim forms for every person in your vehicle who was injured including children who appear to have minor injuries. If a person in the vehicle has their own auto insurance personally or in their immediate family they apply to their own insurer for no fault benefits.  If it is not your vehicle involved in the accident contact your own personal insurance company about the benefits.  DO NOT CONTACT THE AT FAULT DRIVER’S INSURANCE COMPANY OR MAKE ANY STATEMENT TO THEM IF THEY CONTACT YOU.  Obviously if you believe you are at fault you should contact your own insurer and let them know truthfully what happened in detail. You have a duty to fully co-operate with your own insurance company.

5.  If there is serious injury known to you get legal advice soon after the day of the accident. If you are going to make a claim for injury compensation a lawyer will not require money in advance to make a claim for you. Most lawyers work on contingency fee basis where they charge a percentage of what they get for you. You need not worry about whether you can afford a lawyer. You should not have to pay for a first legal consultation to get advice. There are time limits for making claims so do not delay thinking you will get better.  Be aware of the time limits and make sure a lawyer will preserve your rights by filing a claim if appropriate. If a claim is made against the at fault driver interest runs on the claim from the date of notice.

6.  No fault benefits pay for loss of income a tax free benefit up to $400 per week. That limit and other limits of benefits could be higher if you have optional coverage. If you are losing significantly more than your benefit entitlement see a lawyer to get compensation from the at fault driver’s insurer.  No fault benefits also pay any “reasonable” medical expenses not paid for by Government health insurance or any extended health coverage that you have. The system is complicated so do not be afraid to ask for legal advice.  Get a brochure from your insurer explaining what no fault benefits cover along with the accident benefit claim forms.  In cases of very severe injury a person may qualify for greater and longer term no fault benefits if they are found to have “catastrophic injury”. If that is suspected get legal advice on that rather than just accept what your insurer offers regardless of fault for the accident.

7.  If a family member is killed in the accident no fault benefits pays for funeral expenses plus a death benefit, and there may be other claims available so it is a good idea to get legal advice early.

8.  If the at fault driver has no insurance you can make claims against your own insurer based on the fault of the uninsured driver.  This is also true where the at fault driver is unknown (leaves the scene) or does not have sufficient insurance coverage. Your policy includes this coverage.  You should consult a lawyer about this.

9.  If you are a pedestrian or bicyclist you are entitled to no fault benefits from your own auto insurer or if you do not have one (or one for your household) the insurer of the vehicle that hit you.  See a lawyer regarding injuries in these situations.

10.  If you are from outside Ontario and you are injured in an Ontario accident or you are from Ontario and injured in another province or outside the country contact Miskin Law Offices who often deal with these complex cases.

11.  If you are a passenger in a vehicle (even your own) and a friend or family member is driving and at fault you do have a right to claim from the insurance company for damages for personal injury under the liability coverage.

Sorry

The December 7, 2009 issue of the Law Times newspaper included a detailed article on the impact of Ontario’s Apology Act.  For the article they interviewed Murray Miskin whose comments are noted in the extract below:

Ontario’s recent enactment of its Apology Act, introduced as Bill 108 and passed last spring, aims to allow professional organizations and individuals to simply apologize for incidents gone awry while waiving the confession as a bona fide admission of guilt.

The legislation essentially recognizes the need for people on the receiving end of an alleged wrongdoing to receive an apology — and perhaps a negotiated amount of compensation — from the alleged perpetrator while avoiding litigation.

The hope is that the legislation will lessen the propensity for people to sue for damages resulting from minor incidents and enable more serious cases that end up in the courts to reach settlements expeditiously.

But for years, associations for many professionals along with their lawyers, such as those in the health-care and insurance sectors, have advised practitioners never to apologize. The fear is that the other side would perceive such a move as an admission of guilt leading to litigation or a disciplinary hearing within the governing body.

In passing the legislation last spring, Ontario becomes the fourth province in Canada to enact such laws, joining British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba along with a number of U.S. jurisdictions and
Australia.

Yet some industries that lawyers had expected to embrace the legislation haven’t yet adopted policies to acknowledge its advantages that could serve to avoid the cost of litigation in many cases, say lawyers.

“It’s a good piece of legislation with a good purpose,” says Murray Miskin, a lawyer and founder of a firm called ADR Works based outside of Toronto that focuses on alternative dispute resolution as a means to get settlements for clients.

He says the insurance industry is the ideal sector to benefit from the legislation, but so far major insurance companies, along with their lawyers, haven’t been implementing practices in conformity with it.

“They just haven’t yet absorbed the consequences of the act and how it could benefit them,” says Miskin, many of whose clients are people seeking compensation as a result of car crashes. “So the practice of litigation in the area hasn’t changed.”

He says in one matter he handled recently, a client told him that if the driver of a vehicle that caused the crash he was involved in had apologized at the time of the incident, he wouldn’t have sought legal recourse.
But the client instead went to Miskin’s office seeking to launch a lawsuit for his relatively minor injuries because the driver didn’t apologize.

“In most cases, a person would have to be seriously injured” in order to launch a lawsuit for damages, Miskin acknowledges. “But if the other driver doesn’t even say they are sorry, the first thing people think of is [to] sue.”
He suggests insurance companies could benefit by curbing their costs for litigation and even for claims if they informed consumers about the legislation.

“An apology is not an admission, and if people were encouraged to apologize within the provisions set out in the act, it does not mean you’re at fault, and under this act, the apology cannot be used against you in a lawsuit.”

You may read the full article at this link: http://tinyurl.com/ybwlqqd