Gillian Mays

Gillian Mays

Gillian attained an Honours Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature from Queen’s University in 2011, receiving the Roscoe R. Miller Award and the Arts 1915 Price for academic excellence. She received her Juris Doctor from Western University in 2014 and was placed on the Dean’s Honour List.

Prior to joining Bogoroch & Associates LLP, Gillian articled at a full-service firm in London, and was called to the Bar in 2015. She has been published in The Advocates’ Journal and participated in the Gale Cup Moot, and is a member of the Canadian Bar Association, The Advocates’ Society, and the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association.

Thomson v. Portelance, 2018 ONSC 1278 (CanLII)*

Shaw v. Barber, 2017 ONSC 2155 (CanLII)

The limitation period does not begin to run when the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee becomes a mentally incapable person’s statutory guardian of property. The limitation period begins to run when the guardian of property has determined that there is a basis for exercising their authority as litigation guardian and thereby becomes the mentally incapable person’s litigation guardian.

Persampieri v. Hobbs, 2018 ONSC 368 (CanLII)

In a recent costs endorsement against Aviva, the Court held that insurers who took positions on modest claims that necessitated a trial should not be allowed to rely on a strict application of the proportionality principle in determining costs. The Court held that as Aviva had made a tactical decision to reject a Rule 49 offer that the Plaintiff beat at trial, it should bear the full magnitude of the consequences of that strategy. Although the Plaintiff was ultimately awarded only $20,414.83 for her damages, the court ordered a costs award of $237,017.50 payable to the Plaintiff.

Winmill v. Woodstock (Police Services Board), 2017 ONCA 962 (CanLII)

The Court of Appeal held that the tort of battery against police officers was not discoverable until the plaintiff was acquitted of criminal charges of assault of the officers and resisting arrest, thereby extending the “appropriate means” aspect of discoverability until the date of his acquittal.

Lazar v. TD General Insurance Company, 2017 ONSC 1242 (CanLII)

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. McKeown, 2017 ONCA 563

The Court of Appeal held that Section 33(4)3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule does not require an insurer to give a specific reason for requesting an Examination under Oath of the claimant.