Kelly + Singh Lawyers LLP, is a litigation boutique servicing southern Ontario, including the greater Toronto and greater Hamilton areas, as well as, Niagara and Waterloo Regions. We specialize in personal injury and small business litigation.
We’ve developed an advocacy strategy that combines the finesse of, delivering sound and legally grounded advocacy on behalf of our clients, while also fostering compromise; by bridging gaps towards an early resolution. We believe our approach allows us to best serve our clients and our community.
In today’s atmosphere getting your case to trial is a distance marathon, towards a potentially uncertain outcome. How the law applies to your case will be unique to your circumstances. We aim to help you navigate through any litigation process in an informed and strategic way, toward an optimal outcome.
Knowledge is power. Having the right information and advice to navigate the complexities of litigation is crucial. Our goal is to ensure that you are empowered with the information and expertise that you need to effectively make decisions and reach a desirable outcome in the litigation.
We believe it is important to have a diversity of resources available to develop the best strategy for your case, this is why we take a team approach when handling your litigation matters. Collaboration breeds innovation and leadership in the development of your litigation strategy.
Having the right goal is the key to sound strategy. Our goal is to ensure we understand what your objectives are and then to develop a strategy to achieve the best possible outcome in your case.
Michael has been practicing Civil Litigation since 1986, after completing his articles. He has developed an expertise in several areas of litigation practice, including Personal Injury, Worker’s Compensation, Estates Litigation, Condominium Law, Insurance Claims, Employment Law and Appellate Advocacy.
Michael brings common sense analysis to the most complex disputes and looks for practical solutions that are best for the client. He has successfully appeared before all levels of tribunals, boards and courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada.
His extensive knowledge of the law, and experience in trial and appellate advocacy, are an asset in any litigation.
Carleton University – Undergraduate Degree in Political Science and Law
University of Ottawa – Bachelors of Law (L.L.B.) (1983)
Called to the Bar of Ontario (1986)
This case from 1986 deals with the procedural obligations of a plaintiff in a personal injury case to obtain medical records that she did not possess but did have a right to obtain. The Court clarified that the plaintiff was obligated to make “best efforts” to request the records in order to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure.
This was an arbitration hearing from 1995. The insured person sought additional income replacement benefits from his own insurer after returning to work for a period of time, but then having to discontinue after experiencing further accident related problems. It was thought that if a person returned to employment for more than 90 days they could not claim further benefits. This decision clarified that the regulation was interpreted to be a presumption that could be rebutted with evidence that the disability still continued. In this case our client was awarded further benefits after he had to go off work.
In this case, our client’s father who had been mentally incapacitated for many years passed away after which time it was discovered the Public Trustee had failed to seek disability benefits available from their father’s employer when he initially became disabled. This particular decision allowed the addition of the employer to the lawsuit beyond the normal limitation based on the “discoverability principle”. The case against the employer was based on medical records of the company that showed they knew of the father’s problems but failed to take any steps to assist him in applying for available disability benefits at that time.
This was a precedent setting decision regarding limitation periods for minors in motor vehicle collisions. Limitation periods to start legal actions were spread out in many different statutes. It was assumed at that time that the two year limitation period in the Highway Traffic Act applied to everyone regardless of disability or being a child. The Supreme Court reversed an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling, and decided that limitation periods for children in car accidents did not start running until the child turned 18 years of age. The decision allowed many cases for injured infants to go forward that would otherwise have been barred. In 2002, the Ontario government finally consolidated most of the various limitation periods into one statute, and specifically enshrined the extended protection for children’s claims.
Our client, a purchaser of a property, was involved in the lawsuit with another party who had purported to exercise a right of first refusal and when problems arose, placed a certificate of pending litigation on title. A motion to discharge the certificate was unsuccessful, and the trial judge held that this determined the other parties right to an interest in the land and precluded our client’s claim for damages. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, and found that the motion did not decide that issue, and sent the matter back for a new trial.
Law Society of Upper Canada
Ontario Trial Lawyers Association
Hamilton Law Association
“Taking on the Terminator: Issues to Consider When Suing a Disability Insurer” The Advocates Quarterly (1992), Volume 14, Number 3.
Sabrina’s expertise includes Personal Injury, Commercial Litigation, Construction Lien Matters, Real Estate Litigation, Condominium Law and Appellate Advocacy.
Sabrina has argued successfully before all levels of Ontario’s Courts. Sabrina fosters strategic thinking and creative problem solving to obtain the best possible outcomes for clients.
As a condo owner, Sabrina also serves as a member of the condominium’s board of directors.
University of Toronto – Honours Bachelor Degree (2006)
University of Western Ontario – Juris Doctor (2009)
Called to the Bar of Ontario (2010)
The case is significant in affirming the impact that a Summary Judgement has on parties to a proceeding, and the distinction between a party taking no position on a motion, or consenting. The Court affirmed that although there is a substantive difference between taking no position and consenting to a motion – regardless, when faced with a summary judgment motion – all parties are affected by the Judgment in these types of motion, and must participate if they want to maintain their substantive rights in the proceeding.
This case establishes law related to solicitor conflict of interest and an insurer’s privacy obligations to it’s insured in the context of automobile claims adjudication. The Divisional Court recognized that the issues in the appeal had significant precedential value, as a case that would have a significant impact on the rights of motor vehicle accident claimants, insurance industry practices and were also a matter of public interest.
Distinguishing the case at bar from the previous leading authority Klingbeil v. Worthington Trucking, the Divisional Court held that the solicitor’s conflict of interest in the case arose by virtue of the fact that an accident benefits insurer has certain privacy obligations to it’s insured, requiring information from the accident benefits file to only be produced by the victim through the litigation, particularly where the victim has a statutory obligation to apply for accident benefits before pursuing an at-fault claim.
In this case, the Superior Court determined that an insurer who happens to be the same for the victim and the at-fault motorist in a motor vehicle accident, places its counsel in a conflict of interest position where information in the Accident Benefits file of the victim is handed over to the lawyer dealing with the claim against the at-fault motorist, regardless of whether they have taken an off-coverage position on behalf of the insurer. Decision upheld on appeal. See the Divisional Court ruling above.
This FSCO tribunal decision affirmed the Plaintiff’s right to choose the forum within which to have their entitlement to Accident Benefits determined. Allowing the Plaintiff to have certain benefits determined by the Tribunal and others determined through the normal court process, the Arbitrator acknowledged that the two benefits at issue were completely distinct and did not raise a risk of duplication or inconsistency.
Law Society of Upper Canada
Hamilton Law Association
Ontario Trial Lawyers Association
Halton County Law Association
Paralegal at the Firm, Jenna has developed extensive knowledge handling Accident Benefits matters and Small Claims Court matters.
She also has in depth knowledge in tort litigation proceedings and is an essential asset to the Kelly + Singh Lawyer LLP Team.
McMaster University – Bachelors Degree (2012)
Trios College – Paralegal Diploma, Distinction (2013)
Law Society of Upper Canada
Maninder is fluent in Hindi, Punjabi, and Urdu as well as English and brings her extensive expertise in client relations to the team.
She is a certified language interpreter working in the legal and medical field and understands the legal process involved in personal injury cases including Examinations for Discovery, mediations and medical assessments.
She has extensive experience dealing with clients with compassion and understanding.
Maninder is a passionate volunteer and was recently awarded the Canada 150 Award for exceptional service to the community.
Punjab University – Bachelors Degree (1974)
Punjabi University – Masters Degree (1976)
Interpreter Language and Skills Assessment Tool Certification (2010)
We are always keeping abreast of the issues and topics that are important to our community. We are pleased to provide legal commentary or perspective to members of the media on any issue that falls within our scope.
We welcome invitations for our lawyers to present, speak at or share their knowledge at any seminars, forums, or conferences for legal professionals, business professionals or as education opportunities for members of the public.
April 2016 – Sabrina Singh + Jenna Marshall, Guest Speakers – Grade 12 Law Class, Sherwood Secondary School, Hamilton.
May 2017 – Sabrina Singh, Mock-Trial Judge – Halton High Schools Mock-Trial Tournament.
May 2017 – Michael Kelly, Panelist – Appeals Process in Workplace Safety and Insurance Law, Annual Conference (Ontario Bar Association).
November 2017 – Maninder Singh, Recipient – Canada 150th Anniversary Award, Brampton East.
Sabrina Speaking to Grade Twelve Law
Class Students at Sherwood Secondary
School – April 2016
Kelly + Singh is always on the look out for the best and the brightest to join our dynamic and collegial team.
You will find our career openings posted in this section, but even if we aren’t hiring at the moment, we invite talented people to submit their credentials for our consideration.
Kelly + Singh recognizes the barriers to the profession faced by members of our community from diverse backgrounds and is proud to be an equal opportunity employer. We welcome and encourages applications from people of diverse backgrounds and people with disabilities. Accommodations are available on request for candidates taking part in all aspects of the selection process.
If you believe you are a well qualified candidate and would make a great addition to our team – please submit your resume, along with academic credentials and references to: email@example.com
Acknowledging that access to justice is a serious issue that effects many individuals and small businesses in Ontario, Kelly + Singh invites those in need of litigation representation to contact us to see if we can help on a pro-bono basis.
Applicants interested in applying for the program will be selected based on the following criteria:
If you believe you or your small business meets the eligibility criteria and you have a case you would like pro bono assistance with please contact us to obtain an application form to participate in our Pro Bono Program.