Our Trial Report Card

Proven Advocacy. Real Results.

Boland Romaine’s practice focuses on representing individuals who have suffered critical injuries and represent family members who have lost a loved one through negligence of others.

Justice can’t always be negotiated and unfairness must be overcome at trial. Insurers know which lawyers go to trial for their clients and which ones don’t. Shouldn’t you?

A strong trial record is one of the most important factors in securing a fair settlement outside of court. The insurance company knows which lawyers will say “no” to unfair offers and are capable of winning better outcomes at trial.

A Trial Report Card is the only objective measure of the skill, judgment, and capability of your lawyer. While some lawyers may promote their settlements, we don’t believe this gives you any real insight into the lawyer’s capability. Settlements are private, not adjudicated, and don’t tell you how much that lawyer compromised.

We are very proud of our trial record. We have taken the following types of cases to trial:

Traumatic brain injury
Spinal cord injury
Fatality
Burn injury
Joint injury
Chronic pain
Psychiatric injury

Pedestrian
Cyclist
Motorcyclist
Motorist
Road design
Winter road maintenance
Falls

Trial Report Card

Download PDF Here

Request a Free Consultation

You will not pay any fees until your case is won or settled.

Trial Summary:
Johnson v. Lewin

Stanley Johnson, a water softener installer, slipped and fell on ice that had accumulated on the lower portion of a driveway – the apron – on a residential street in Newmarket. Mr. Johnson’s prior lawyer mistakenly released the Town from the action, unaware that the apron was within the road allowance and Newmarket’s responsibility. To prove the case against the lawyer, we had to prove the case against the municipality as well, which included distinguishing a Court of Appeal decision that found a Town had no obligation to clear the apron of driveways. The defendant’s lawyer made a “zero” offer.
Trial Summary:
Nairn v. Merlino

Tim was a union glazier who was T-boned at an intersection. He suffered soft-tissue injuries to his neck that prevented him from returning to his job, hanging large glass panels on skyscrapers. With the opinion of a neuro-surgeon, the defendant argued that his inability to work was due to a pre-existing condition, spinal stenosis, of which Mr. Nairn was unaware but was visible on diagnostic imaging. After hearing from an expert orthopaedic surgeon at trial and from people who knew Mr. Nairn best, both before and after the accident, the jury awarded enough compensation to replace his inability to work and to compensate him for his pension losses.
Trial Summary:
Elder v. Rizzardo Bros Holdings Inc.

Helen fractured her elbow while walking through a grocery store parking lot. She slipped and fell on an icy concrete island beside a wheelchair accessible parking space. The value of Helen’s claim was agreed upon by the parties. Still, the defendant property owner and maintenance contractor did not accept any responsibility for the accident. They did not make any offer to settle. It was their position that Helen was 100% to blame. They came to a secret agreement to join forces against Helen. She had no choice but to concede or fight at trial. Helen chose to fight. Through the trial, we established that the property owner’s contractor’s records were made-up and that the engineer’s reconstruction was critically flawed and misrepresentative of the work that was actually performed. The jury found the property owner 50% at-fault, the contractor 40% at-fault, and Helen 10% at-fault.
Trial Summary:
Derry v. C.F. Realty Holdings

Gloria was an employee of The Bay at the Georgian Mall in Barrie. After her shift, she exited the mall and slipped on ice that had formed on the sidewalk. The defendants argued that Gloria’s boots were the cause of her fall, as was her inattention. We hired an expert tribometrist to measure the level of friction created between Gloria’s rubber-soled boots to show they were of no consequence. We focused on a leak coming from the mall’s roof, which it knew about, and was the cause of the ice. Gloria sustained multiple complicated ankle fractures, which required surgery and extensive treatment. Her injuries were so severe that they eventually took her out of the workforce entirely. The jury determined that the Georgian Mall was 90% responsible for the accident and returned a verdict that was more than double the amount that the defendants offered to settle for before trial.
Trial Summary:
J. v. Jocko

This case involved a young boy who was viciously attacked by a dog and bitten about his face and neck. Sadly, the child was physically and psychologically scarred from the event. The challenge in the case was establishing the impact the emotional damage would have on his ability to earn income in the future. Following the trial, the court awarded the child $920,000 for the young boy’s losses.
Trial Summary:
Barbeau v. Ruchetta

We represented a pedestrian, Nancy, who was walking in a crosswalk when an inattentive truck driver struck her. As a result of the accident, Nancy suffered a significant fracture of her left tibia and fibula, which required emergent surgery and three additional surgeries, including a fusion. It was expected that she would require an additional three surgeries throughout her lifetime.Nancy returned to her administrative job because she loved what she did, but she struggled with pain. The defendant’s insurer refused to acknowledge that she would ever have a loss of income. We proceeded to trial. We called on Nancy’s treating orthopaedic surgeon and family doctor to testify to her ongoing limitations, and we flew an independent witness in from Texas to tell the jury about the severity of the impact. The jury returned a verdict awarding Nancy enough compensation to allow her to work significantly reduced hours until her retirement.
Trial Summary:
Taylor v. Allard

Lorne Taylor suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns to his shoulder and arm when he fell into a 10’ wide and 3’ deep bonfire pit in the backyard of a rental property. No police or ambulance was called to the scene. The property owners concealed the bonfire pit and amassed statements from every guest that the incident happened at someone else’s property. They later sold their property, which was bulldozed for the Highway 404 extension.
Trial Summary:
Gorman v. Falardeau

Bill Gorman was injured in three separate collisions under three different insurance compensation regimes. The trial was complex and pitted Bill against three defence lawyers. Bill was fortunate enough to have a brother, John Gorman Q.C., who was himself a personal injury lawyer of 30 years and a former senior crown prosecutor. John referred his brother to Tim Boland. Go to bolandromaine.com to hear John tell you why he hired Tim and what factors are essential to consider when hiring a personal injury lawyer. Following a lengthy trial in North Bay, the court recognized Bill’s injuries and awarded him the highest award for chronic pain in the country up to that point. The defendants appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision.
Trial Summary:
Cockburn v. Holmes

Hit the brake – Swerve left – Dump the bike! These were the split-second decisions Ron made as a van pulled out from a stop sign, turned right, then left across Ron’s path, at an off-set intersection. Ron went into the side of the van and was dragged 50’ across the road. The van driver was charged but acquitted at traffic court. After the traffic court decision, Ron came to us. He had severe orthopaedic injuries that ended his career as a produce manager.Following a month-long trial, the jury found the van’s driver to be 90% at-fault for the collision and awarded Ron enough compensation to fund his future care needs and replace the income he lost by having to retire early.
Trial Summary:
Jones v. Ross

Tim represented a snowmobile driver, Rob Jones, who was driving along a remote roadside when he was struck by an oncoming motorist who had crested a hill and sent Rob into a tree. The police charged Rob. Rob fractured his lumbar spine, which required fusion surgery and Harrington rods. Tim represented him at Provincial Offences Court, where he was acquitted. We then represented him in his civil action and took his case to trial. The other motorist was found 75% at-fault for travelling at an excessive speed and not keeping to the right side of the road. As an autobody mechanic, Rob relied on his physical wellbeing to earn his livelihood. The court awarded him compensation to reflect the negative impact his injuries would have on his ability to continue working as an autobody mechanic for the remainder of his career.
Trial Summary:
Silveira v. Regional Municipality of York

Following the Thornhill case, we launched an Application against the Province of Ontario and the Regional Municipality of York on behalf of Ms. Silveira. She had lost control of her vehicle on the downslope of a snow-covered hill and came into a head-on collision with an oncoming motorist. Our mission was to have the regulation governing winter road maintenance declared invalid because it set dangerously low standards for municipal ploughs and sanders that put the motoring public at risk. After numerous motions and appeals, the Province of Ontario redrafted the regulations, again. The Regional Municipality of York withdrew its reliance on the regulations as a defence in Ms. Silveira’s case.
Trial Summary:
Thornhill v. Shadid

The plaintiff, a nurse, was hit head-on by a motorist who lost control on snow-covered roads on Christmas Day. The Regional Municipality of York relied on inaccurate records suggesting the road had been ploughed. It also relied on new regulations, O.Reg 239/02, Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways, that set very low patrolling and ploughing standards.
Trial Summary:
Pelletier v. Ontario Provincial Police

This 22-day trial pitted Jerry, a young man with a troubled past, against an O.P.P. officer and his five colleagues. Jerry was riding his bike at night without lights or reflectors, on the wrong side of the street, while wearing dark clothes and no helmet. He was struck by a police cruiser making a right turn at an intersection. The police claimed the collision occurred away from the intersection; Jerry’s brief memory was that he was in the cross-walk.
Trial Summary:
Roycroft v. Kyte

This 17-day trial involved a tragic single motor vehicle accident. Bill Goff and Jonathan Roycroft were passengers in a vehicle that left the roadway at the crest of an old hill in the Town of East Gwillimbury. Bill sustained catastrophic injuries, including paralysis from his chest down and a brain injury. Jonathan sustained fatal injuries.The Town denied liability and maintained its position throughout that the accident’s sole cause was the negligent operation of the vehicle by the driver.A lawyer who was aware of our expertise in municipal liability referred the case to us.
Trial Summary:
Goff v. Kyte, EG et al.

The trial of this action involved a serious single motor vehicle accident which occurred on July 9, 1992. The trial was heard over 17 days before Justice Shaughnessy.
Trial Summary:
Silveira v. Her Majesty the Queen

Following the Thornhill case, we launched an Application against the Province of Ontario and the Regional Municipality of York on behalf of Ms. Silveira. She had lost control of her vehicle on the downslope of a snow-covered hill and came into a head-on collision with an oncoming motorist. Our mission was to have the regulation governing winter road maintenance declared invalid because it set dangerously low standards for municipal ploughs and sanders that put the motoring public at risk. After numerous motions and appeals, the Province of Ontario redrafted the regulations, again. The Regional Municipality of York withdrew its reliance on the regulations as a defence in Ms. Silveira’s case.
Trial Summary:
Campeau, Raymond Inquest

The issues at play in the inquest were the relevant regulations relating to lifting devices, the shaft sinking process, the inherent dangers and environment of underground mining.

CLIENT TESTIMONIALS

Trial Experience Questions

Gather the Evidence

Make an Informed Decision

An injury lawyer who is either afraid, inexperienced, or cannot afford to go to trial may ultimately end up costing you thousands in compensation you are rightfully owed.

Trial Experience Questions	Timothy Boland	Darcy Romaine
Do you, personally, regularly take cases to trial?
Have you, personaly, won cases like mine at trial?
Do you, personally, have precedent- setting decisions?
Can I see your written decisions and jury verdicts?

Personal injury lawyer Questions

After you learn about the lawyer’s trial experience, consider the following questions, which address the lawyer’s knowledge and general reputation amongst peers.

Other Helpful Questions	Timothy Boland	Darcy Romaine
Has the Law Society of Ontario certified you as a Specialist in Civil Litigation?
Have you won awards for your trial work from legal associations?
Have your peers endorsed you for your inclusion in the Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory?
Have your peers endorsed you for your inclusion in BestLawyers.com peer review directory?
Have legal publications recognized your firm as a Top 10 Personal Injury Law Firm in Canada?
Have you published extensively in the field of personal injury?
Do you teach other lawyers how to conduct trials?
Are you invited to speak at conferences regarding trial work?
Are you, or have you been, a board member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association?

Real Trial

Lawyers Since 1984

The firm specializes in personal injury law with lawyers highly experienced in all types of injury matters including catastrophic personal injuries, wrongful deaths, serious motor vehicle accidents, slip and trip and fall accidents, occupier’s liability, and defective products.
We Have The Resources To Fight The

Injury Lawyer In Your Corner

We have spent upwards of $600,000 on a single file, developing the medical and engineering evidence needed to take complicated cases to trial.
Servicing The

Injured Across Ontario

We routinely handle personal injury cases in Newmarket, GTA and across Ontario as well as cases from out of province and the United States.
Lawyers Who Are

Dedicated To Our Profession

We have dedicated our professional careers to pursuing the highest standards of personal injury litigation. We are recognized by the Law Society of Ontario as Specialists. We are frequent speakers at conferences, educating our fellow personal injury lawyers.
You Do Not Pay Any Legal Fees Unless

We Successfully Resolve Your Claim

Our retainer is based on a contingency fee meaning that you do not pay any money upfront throughout our representation. We charge a flat fee upon successful settlement or judgment of your claim. We are upfront about all fees and expenses and ensure that.
We Work To

Reduce Your Risk

We will assist you in obtaining adverse cost insurance to reduce or eliminate costs, fees and disbursements of an unsuccessful claim. With the overwhelming majority of cases resulting in a settlement this will provide a significant piece of mind.

Our Locations

Head Office Address
20 Wellington St. E.,
Aurora, ON, L4G 1H5, Canada
- 1-844-837-6583
- 905-841-5717
View map
Keswick Address
183 Simcoe Ave
Keswick, ON L4P 2H6, Canada
- 1-844-837-6583
View map
Markham Address
55 Albert St. Suite 100
Markham, ON L3P 2T4, Canada
- 1-844-837-6583
View map

Injury Lawyers Since 1984

Our Trial Report Card

Proven Advocacy. Real Results.

Justice can’t always be negotiated and unfairness must be overcome at trial. Insurers know which lawyers go to trial for their clients and which ones don’t. Shouldn’t you?

Trial Report Card

Download PDF Here

Gather the Evidence

Make an Informed Decision

Personal injury lawyer Questions

Lawyers

Contact

Expertise

Area We Proudly Serve