Eric R. Williams Senior Partner Tel: 613-237-0520 Fax: 613-237-3163 Email: williams@williamsmcenery.com Called to the Bar: Ontario, 1974 Download CV

Education

• LL.B., Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario (1972)
• B.A., (Biology & Physics), Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario (1969)
  
  

Areas of Practice

• Civil litigation, with an emphasis on negligence and professional negligence
• Corporate commercial litigation
• Complex insurance issues

Practice Summary

Eric is the founding partner of an eight-person civil litigation boutique that has operated in Ottawa since 1978. He has extensive experience in all aspects of civil and corporate litigation. Eric has represented parties in over 150 trials, hearings and appeals. He has appeared before all levels of court including the Supreme Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, Federal Court Trial Division, Ontario Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Justice. In addition, he has appeared before specialized tribunals including the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Gomery Inquiry and the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons.

Eric has represented parties in complex litigation matters that have dealt with novel points of law. Over 60 of his decisions have been reported.

Eric is an advocate. Eric’s clients come from all walks of life, from judges to everyday citizens. Many of his clients come by referral. Eric also acts for institutional clients including professional liability insurers and property casualty insurers.

In addition to his regular practice, Eric has been a Deputy Small Claims Court Judge for over 15 years and has taught at the Bar Admission Course. Eric is a mentor for newer lawyers in the Carleton County Bar Association’s mentoring initiatives, and he is proud of the training program within the firm, where new litigators are taken on trials with senior lawyers, at no charge to the client, to help them gain courtroom experience.

Selected Awards and Achievements

• 2006 Award for Excellence in Insurance Law from the Ontario Bar Association
• Voted as one of the Best Lawyers in Canada by his peers (First Edition, Woodward/White, 2006)

Advocacy Affiliations

Eric is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, Canadian Bar Association (Civil
Litigation Section), County of Carleton Law Association and the Advocates’ Society..

Eric has delivered papers and seminars on a wide range of topics.

Selected Papers and Seminars

• Speaker, “Social Host Liability: The SCC Speaks – Childs v. Desormeaux”, Tricks of the Trade 2007: Practical Strategies for Winning Auto Case, The Advocates’ Society, January 2007
• Speaker, “One More for the Road?: The Implications of Childs v. Desormeaux,” The Advocates’ Society Annual Fall Convention, November 2006
• Panelist, “Mock Trial Seminar”, Insurance Institute of Ontario, September 2006
• Panelist, “Social Host Liability & the Zoë Childs Case – Is There a New Game In Town?”, Canadian Defence Lawyers, June 2006
• Speaker, The Canadian Institute “Auto Insurance Claims Litigation”, Calgary, Alberta, September 2005
• Speaker, “Distinction between Breach of Fiduciary Obligation and Negligence”, Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company, November 2004
• Speaker, “Social Host Liability Update – Childs v. Desormeaux”, County of Carleton Law Association Annual Montebello Conference, November 2004
• Speaker, “Host Liquor Liability”, Ottawa Insurance Brokers Association, April 2003
• Speaker, “Examination for Discovery”, The Advocates’ Society – Civil Litigation Skills, April 2003
• Speaker, “Social Host Liability Update – Childs v. Desormeaux”, County of Carleton Law Association Annual Montebello Conference, November 2002
• Speaker, “Service, Innovation & Profitability; How to Write A Winning Proposal for Legal Services”, Canadian Bar Association – 2002 Annual Meeting, London, Ontario, August, 2002
• Speaker, “Opening Statement, Closing and Argument”, Advocates’ Society – Civil Litigation Skills, April 2002
• Speaker, “Cross-Examination”, Advocates’ Society – 2002 Courthouse Series, February 2002
• Speaker, “Evidence”, Canadian Bar Association (Ontario), June 2000
• Panelist, “Claims Involving Teachers and School Boards”, Canadian Bar Association (Ontario), April 1996
• Speaker, “Liability”, Canadian Association of Fire Investigators – Spring Seminar April 1996

Selected Cases

Social Host Liability

• Childs v. Desormeaux, (2006) SCC 18, (2004) 71 O.R. (3d) 195 (C.A.),
  (2002) 217 D.L.R. (4th) 217 (SCJ)
  This case was one of a series of actions started against "social hosts" represented by Mr. Williams from trial to the Supreme Court of Canada. The loss occurred when an individual present at a social gathering left the premises and caused a serious motor vehicle accident, giving rise to five separate claims. Although for different reasons, the trial judge, the Court of Appeal and ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada, dismissed the action against the social hosts. At issue was whether or not there existed a duty of "social host" in Canada and, if so, the definition of that duty. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that social hosts at parties where alcohol is served do not owe a duty of care to public users of highways. This decision preserves the legal autonomy of individual members of society and continues to restrict the requirement by other members of society to act affirmatively-when aware others are engaging in risky behaviour in social situations. Legal observers have opined that t his may be the most important tort case in Canada in thirty years.

Negligence

• Dibartolo Estate v. Avanti Tavern [1994] O.J. No. 191 (Gen.Div.)
  Fire loss destroyed plaintiff's building. Representing the successful plaintiff, action was brought against a company servicing a fire extinguishing system in a tenant's premises. Servicing company found liable.
  
  
• Hobson v. Solarflare Ltd. 1990] O.J. No. 1570 (H.C.)
  Representing the defendant who negligently installed a chimney in the plaintiff's premises, Mr. Williams successfully refuted the allegation that the negligent installation caused this fire loss.
  
  
• Johnston and Johnston v. Standard Life Assurance Co. et al. (1990) O.R. (2d). 495
  The plaintiff tripped on a mat in an apartment building parking garage and broke her hip ending up in a wheelchair at trial. The issue was the extent of the owner's liability obligations under the Occupier's Liability Act. The plaintiff was found 50% responsible for her own loss. Mr. Williams represented the defendant.
  
  
• Hodgins Lumber Ltd. v. Foley [1983] O.J. No. 254 (H.C.)
  This action involved the destruction by fire of a large riding stable. Representing the plaintiff, Mr. Williams proved the fire was caused by spontaneous combustion as a result of the negligence of the defendant.
  
  
• Delalis v. Nepean (City) (1997) 43 O.T.C. 241 (Gen.Div.)
  This action against a police officer involved issues of the rules of the road for emergency vehicles.
  
  
• Miller v. Stewart [1991] O.J. No. 2238 (Gen.Div.)
  Mr. Williams successfully defended the police officer sued for assault, false imprisonment and false arrest.

Corporate/Commercial

• Tom Cannon & Associates Ltd. v. British Aviation Insurance and McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd (2001) 142 O.A.C. 282 (C.A.), (1999) 106 O.T.C. 1 (SCJ)
  Mr. Williams represented the plaintiff helicopter owner in a claim for damages when his helicopter crashed. The action was brought against the insurer of the helicopter and the manufacturer based on its negligence in preparing the repair manual for the helicopter. The plaintiff succeeded at trial and appeal in holding both the insurer and the manufacturer liable.
  
  
• Re-Max Metro-City Realty Ltd. v. Trebor Venture Corp. [1995] O.J. No. 3390 (Gen.Div.)
  Representing the plaintiff, a real estate broker, an action was brought for unpaid real estate commissions and a bonus. The plaintiff claimed against the defendants on the basis of a partnership and that they were jointly and severally obligated for another partner's debt. The defendants alleged there was no partnership agreement. The trial judge found a partnership and liability against the defendants.
  
  
• Armatage Motors Ltd. v. Royal Trust Corp. of Canada (1995) 45 R.P.R. (2d) 204. (Gen.Div.), ( 1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 599 (On. C.A.)
  This action involved priorities between mortgages and the doctrine of subrogation. Representing the plaintiff, Mr. Williams was successful both on application and appeal in obtaining a declaration that the plaintiff's mortgage was in priority to that of the defendant, Royal Trust.
  
  
• Barnabe v. Touhey [1993] O.J. No. 438 (Gen.Div.), (1994) 18 O.R. (3d) 370 (CA)
  This was a complex three month trial involving the break up of a legal partnership. Mr. Williams represented some of the applicants. The applicants were successful. An appeal was later abandoned by the respondents. The issues involved the suitability of the court ending a partnership in face of a specific wording of a partnership agreement and the manner in which the partnership assets should be divided. This included issues of disposition of goodwill and the imposition of constructive trusts on the partnership assets to answer other claims.
  
  
• Welch & Pridmore Systems Ltd. v. Townson & Alexander Management Consultants Inc. (1992) C.P.R. (3d) 500 (Gen.Div.)
  This action involved the interpretation of a licence agreement and the suitability of injunctive relief in favour of the franchisee represented by Mr. Williams. Injunctive relief was granted.
  
  

Employment / Harassment in Employment

• Harding v. Myotech Therapeutics Inc. (1999) 85 O.T.C. 49 (Gen.Div.)
  Mr. Williams represented the plaintiff who was alleged to have breached her fiduciary duty and a non-competition agreement in setting up a separate business. Action dismissed.
  
  
• Puccini v. Canada (Director General) [1993] 3 F.C. 557 (T.D.)
  On behalf of Mr. Puccini, Mr. Williams brought an application which successfully obtained judicial review attacking parts of Agriculture Canada's workplace harassment policy.
  
  

Government Procurement

• Xwave Solutions Inc. v. Canada (Public Works and Government Services Canada) (2001) F.C.A. No. 337 (F.C.A.)
  Mr. Williams represented the complainant seeking judicial review of the CITT's decision to dismiss its complaint. The Federal Court of Appeal remitted the matter back to the CITT for hearing on certain issues.
  
  
• Xwave Solutions Inc. v. Canada (Public Works and Government Services Canada) (2003) F.C.A. 301
  Following the above decision, the CITT ruled against Xwave and refused to grant an oral hearing with reference to the government’s “intention” in drafting the R.F.P. The F.C.A. agreed with the government—holding the CITT was not in breach of the Rules of Natural Justice in failing to order an oral hearing.
  

Injunctions

• Meridian Insurance Group. Inc. v. Regional Group of Companies [2001] O.J. No. 1396 (S.C.J.)
  Mr. Williams successfully brought an application for injunctive relief on behalf of a commercial tenant to prevent the landlord from forcing the tenant from the premises.
  
  
• Cvetkovic v. Jurisic [1998] O.J. No. 2364 (Gen.Div.)
  Mr. Williams, acting for the defendant, successfully defended this motion for a mareva injunction.
  
  

Insurance

• Goudie v. Canada Life Assurance Co. (2005) 19 C.C.L.I. (4th) 181 (C.A.)
  Mr. Williams represented the appellant on an appeal of an order for summary judgment. The issue before the court was critical illness life insurance policy and the definition of "diagnosis". The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted back for trial.
  
  
• Coutanche v. Napoleon Delicatessen (2004) 72 O.R. (3d) 122
  Mr. Williams successfully represented the plaintiff at the Court of Appeal on whether the principle of discoverability extended the statutory two year limitation period for a motor vehicle action. Action not dismissed and matter remitted back for trial.
  
  
• Great-West Life Assurance Co. v. Canada Post Corp. (2001) 38 C.C.P.B. 96 (S.C.J.)
  Mr. Williams represented the Plaintiff in its claim under a financial agreement for the administering of a benefit plan.
  
  
• Wolfe v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (2001) 32 C.C.L.I. (3d) 121 (S.C.J.)
  This landmark case involves an extension of the definition of use and operation of a motor vehicle. Mr. Williams represented the insurer in the summary judgment motion. Mark Charron represented Lumbermens at the Court of Appeal. The case was argued at the Supreme Court of Canada and the decision is pending.
  
  
• 702535 Ontario Inc. v. Non -Marine Underwriters, Lloyds of London (2000) 184 D.L.R. (4th) 687 (C.A.), (1997) 48 O.T.C. 256 (Gen.Div.), [1996] 1 L.R. 1-3091
  This action involved a fire loss of the plaintiff's hotel and the alleged failure of the insurer to pay indemnity in circumstances where it would be liable for bad faith and thus consequential damages. Action was dismissed against the insurer on the facts and upheld by the Court of Appeal. This is a leading decision dealing with the circumstances when consequential damages might be payable by an insurer for breach of an insurance policy and the circumstances under which a bad faith claim may succeed.
  
  
• H. Brown Electrical Services Ltd. v. Guardian Insurance Co. (1999) 14 C.C.L.I. (3d) 204 (S.C.J.)
  This jury trial involved an insurer denying payment under its policy of insurance on the basis of arson and fraud by the insured. The claim against the insurer was for damages for the fire loss together with punitive damages for bad faith. Action dismissed with a jury at trial. Subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal by the plaintiff abandoned before the appeal hearing.
  
  
• Brown v. Royal Insurance Co. of Canada (1996) 7 O.T.C. 245 (Gen.Div.), (1996) 18 O.T.C. 159 (Gen.Div.)
  Taking the opposite side of this issue, Mr. Williams successfully brought an action against an insurer for coverage following a fire loss and defended the insurer's claim of arson.
  
  
• Ward v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, (2006) 19 B.L.R. (4th) 68; (2006) 38 C.C.L.I. (4th) 238; (2006) 148 A.C.W.S. (3d) 834
  Mr. Williams successfully represented Mr. Ward and his company against the defendant insurance company for damages for failure to pay past and future commissions due and owing, compensatory damages for breach of a fiduciary arrangement, and punitive or aggravated damages. The decision is under appeal.
  
  The endorsement concerning costs in this case, also under appeal, expanded the law regarding the award of a cost premium in favour of a successful Plaintiff.
  
  

Non-Profit corporations

• Campeau v. Robert Campeau Foundation [2005] O.J. No. 1091 (S.C.J.)
  This injunction application involved whether the removal of a board member was done in compliance of the non-profit corporation's by-laws.
  
  
• Montreal & Canadian Diocese v. Protection of the Holy Virgin (2002) 30 B.L.R. (3d) 315, (2001) 141 O.A.C. (C.A.), (2001) O.T.C. 130
  This highly contentious case involved two factions of a religion arguing over a church property. The issues related to interpretation of by-laws and fair process in annual general meetings. The Court of Appeal upheld Mr. Williams' client's interpretation of the by-laws of the not for profit corporation which owned the church property allowing for a veto in the by-laws by a third party of the decision of the board of directors. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused. This valuable property remained in the hands of Mr. Williams' client, the original religious organization that had purchased and developed the property.
  
  
• St. Gregorios Orthodox Church of Toronto v. Thevarkattil (2002) O.T.C. 519 (SCJ)
  This application involved the interpretation of by-laws and voting rights in a non-profit corporation. Mr. Williams successfully represented the respondents.
  
  

Parliamentary Privilege

• Zundel v. Liberal Party of Canada (1999) 60 C.R.R. (2d) 189 (Gen.Div.)
  This action for libel and for a breach under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms involved issues of parliamentary privilege and was defeated on a summary judgment motion.
  
  

Personal injury

• Thomas v. Hamilton (City) Board of Education (1994), 20 O.R. (3d) 598 (C.A.)
  Mr. Williams represented the plaintiff pro bono who was rendered a quadriplegic during a high school football game. The issue was whether or not the Board of Education was negligent in not recognizing that the plaintiff was at special risk for this type of injury because of his body type. The action was dismissed after a lengthy three-month trial in Hamilton. The trial judge found that the Board of Education did not have to know of risks particular to the plaintiff (developed in the U.S.) and thus, were not required to remove him from play. The Court of Appeal agreed that no error was made by the trial judge.
  
  

Professional liability

• Upper Valley Dodge v. Huckabone, (2004) 25 R.P.R. (4th) 310 (S.C.J.)
  Mr. Williams represented the defendant solicitor in an action to determine the propriety of a small town law firm representing both sides of a mortgage transaction. At both trial and appeal, the suggestion that the solicitors involved were in breach of their fiduciary duty or negligence was dismissed.
  
  
• Kisber v. .Ault [2000] O.J. No. 2804 (S.C.J.)
  This action involved an attempt to enforce a forged mortgage. There was a further allegation that the defendant solicitor breached her professional duties by failing to report earlier actions by the forgerer to the Law Society of Upper Canada. Mr. Williams successfully defended all allegations in acting for the defendant.
  
  
• Spadaccini v. Rogers [2000] O.J. No. 779 (S.C.J.)
  The issue in this case dealt with a client's allegation that he did not authorize the settlement of an action. Mr. Williams representing a solicitor, action was dismissed at trial.