Rogers Partners LLP

Rogers Partners LLP is hiring associate lawyers to join our team. Interested candidates should have at least three to five years of litigation experience, preferably in the areas of insurance defence or personal injury. Since our founding in 1994, we have specialized in the defence of liability claims and handling insurance coverage disputes. We have longstanding relationships with many sophisticated insurers and self-insured companies. We combine the personal touch of a smaller firm with the resources, expertise, and experience of a larger firm. Our firm is made up of a balanced mix of professionals through every level of experience. We employ bright, enthusiastic, and talented individuals. Our lawyers are recognized as being among the best in the industry. If you are interested in joining a leading litigation firm, please submit your CV, transcripts, and any reference letters to Tom Macmillan c/o Ms. Hasana Ludlow at hasana.ludlow@rogerspartners.com.

Eli Feldman has written a great post for the RP Blog discussing a recent decision of the Superior Court on when a claim may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits the Court to dismiss an action if it is frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process of the court. In dismissing the case before it, the Court noted that resort to Rule 2.1.01 must be permitted sparingly, and only in the clearest of cases where the frivolous, vexatious, or abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading. The case at bar bore many of the hallmarks of a frivolous and vexatious action, and so the Court felt it was appropriate to dismiss it under Rule 2.1.01. Read Eli’s discussion of this interesting decision on the RP Blog: https://lnkd.in/g5jDz9FV

This week on the RP Blog, Cameron Allan has written an interesting post discussing a recent decision of the Court of Appeal on the availability of sealing orders and possible alternatives to them. The Appellant was seeking a sealing order for evidence filed in a previous proceeding, which they argued could seriously harm the dignity and safety of certain individuals if publicly disclosed. The Court of Appeal considered the three-part test for granting sealing orders, and found that it had not been met. As an alternative, the Court ordered that certain redactions be made to the documents in question to protect the sensitive information. Cameron notes that the constitutionally-entrenched open court principle is not easily overcome when seeking a sealing order, and that redaction of sensitive information may be an available alternative that should be considered where litigants have legitimate privacy concerns over information filed with the court. Read Cameron’s discussion of this interesting case on the RP Blog: https://lnkd.in/gtwH7scp

Antoinette Monardo has written a great post for the RP Blog about a recent decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing an action that had been commenced by an undischarged bankrupt in his own name. Although the plaintiff argued that the failure to bring the action in the name of the trustee in bankruptcy was a simple misnomer that should be cured by the Court, the Court found that this was not merely an irregularity. The plaintiff was obligated to disclose the claim to the trustee in bankruptcy and had failed to do so, and had also failed to disclose the bankruptcy in the action. The Court accordingly held that the action was a nullity when it was commenced, and must be dismissed. Read Antoinette’s discussion of this interesting decision on the RP Blog: https://lnkd.in/g4BQeZWj

Rogers Partners LLP is pleased to announce that the following lawyers have been included in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada™: Stephen Ross, Kevin Adams, Anita Varjacic, Brian Sunohara, David Rogers, and Jason Frost.

Sebastian di Domenico has written a great post for the RP Blog discussing a decision of the Court of Appeal on the sufficiency of reasons of a trial judge. The decision arose in the context of a complex medical malpractice case. The trial judge had dismissed the action, finding the defendant doctors not liable for a patient’s death. The plaintiffs appealed in part on the basis that the trial judge’s reasons were not sufficient. The Court of Appeal reviewed the test for sufficiency of reasons, and found that the trial judge’s reasons, combined with the evidentiary record, permitted an understanding of the judge’s reasoning as well as meaningful appellate review. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Read Sebastian’s discussion of this decision on the RP Blog: https://lnkd.in/eWbyde57  

In her debut post on the RP Blog, Megan C. discusses a recent decision of the Superior Court interpreting the new Rule on bifurcation of trial, which came into effect on July 1, 2024. In dismissing a motion for bifurcation of trial, the Court held that decisive evidence was needed on such a motion to establish that the separate hearings would dispose of some or all of the issues, shorten or simplify the rest of the proceeding, or result in a substantial savings of costs. The Court also expressed concern over whether it is ever appropriate to bifurcate a jury trial, and invited a higher court to opine on this issue. Megan notes that by removing the consent requirement, the wording of the new Rule appears to have been intended to make bifurcation of trials more accessible, but this decision suggests that successfully obtaining a bifurcation order may remain difficult, at least for jury trials. Read Megan’s discussion of this decision on the RP Blog: https://lnkd.in/ghA-X-mY

Shannon Mascarenhas has written an interesting post for the RP Blog discussing a recent decision of the Court of Appeal declining to reinstate the appeal of an internet bully after he failed to meet the court-imposed deadline to perfect his appeal. The would-be appellant had obtained an earlier extension of his deadline for appealing a summary judgment decision finding him liable for his many defamatory posts online. He failed to meet the extended deadline, and the respondents obtained an order from the Registrar dismissing the appeal. In refusing to set aside the appeal, the Court considered the following factors for determining whether the administrative dismissal order should be set aside, finding that the justice of this case did not support it: 1.     Whether the appellant formed a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant period; 2.     The length of the delay and explanation for the delay; 3.     Whether there is prejudice to the responding parties in granting the order; 4.     Whether the appeal is meritorious; and 5.     Whether the “justice of the case” requires it, the justice of the case being the overriding consideration. Read Shannon’s discussion of this interesting case on the RP Blog: https://lnkd.in/gMcWDB73

We're excited to announce that our new articling students started at Rogers Partners LLP this week! Miranda Lacalamita, Jaaron Pullenayegem, Heera Sen, and Sarah Sevier recently completed law school and are one step closer to becoming lawyers. We're thrilled to have them on board!

This week on the RP Blog, Sebastian di Domenico has written a great post discussing a recent ONCA decision on an appeal from a plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the statement of claim, which was denied. The plaintiff had sought leave to amend the statement of claim. At the underlying motion, the motion judge found that the amendment would fundamentally alter the factual matrix to advance a new claim after the expiry of the applicable limitation period, and that the proposed amendment would accordingly cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendant. The Court of Appeal found no basis on which to interfere with this finding. Sebastian notes that this decision demonstrates that plaintiffs are not always permitted to amend the statement of claim. Where there is prejudice that cannot be addressed through costs or an adjournment, such as when the amendments create a new claim that is statute barred, plaintiffs will be stuck with their initial pleading. Read Sebastian’s discussion of this interesting decision on the RP Blog: https://lnkd.in/gJwiNeHh