“Never settle until you get what you want.”
Trevor has practiced at Bell Temple since his Call to the Bar in 2013, having previously summered and articled at a prominent downtown Toronto litigation firm. Trevor is a tough and determined litigator with a calm demeanour in even the most contentious of matters. Trevor has a keen eye for details and brings a thoughtful approach to highly technical and complex disputes. Trevor maintains a broad commercial and insurance litigation practice with a particular focus on CGL work, property disputes, product liability claims and first party losses. Trevor’s construction law practice ranges from construction lien actions to multiparty disputes related to multimillion-dollar construction projects. In addition to servicing his corporate clients, Trevor services private clients in a broad range of civil litigation matters including real estate, tort and breach of contract disputes. Trevor also handles complex motor vehicle accident, occupiers’ liability and critical injury claims.
Trevor has successfully conducted trials in the Superior Court of Justice and the Small Claims Court. Trevor also has a good record of success before the Ontario Court of Appeal and on a wide range of motions including summary judgment and contempt motions. Trevor brings a practical and down to earth approach to each and every one of his files and is highly responsive to clients’ demands. Trevor is passionate about the law and takes great pride in the service he offers to his clients.
Marvelous Mario’s Inc. et al. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., 2018 ONSC 1365 and 2018 ONSC 3250
Successfully dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim at Trial and obtained a costs award of $180,000. The plaintiffs were claiming in excess of $10M under a commercial general liability policy for a moth infestation that allegedly caused business interruption losses and the bankruptcies of related businesses. Justice Akbarali of the Toronto Commercial Court held that the plaintiffs’ alleged loses did not constitute “direct loss” and were therefore not covered under the policy. The plaintiffs’ claim for property loss for lost business equipment was also dismissed as having not been commenced within the one year limitation period specified in the policy.
Erland v. R.W. Tomlinson Ltd., 2019 ONCA 689
Prescott v. Barbon, 2018 ONSC 504
Successfully dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal to set aside the administrative dismissal Order and obtained costs of $17,850 over the course of the hearings. Justice Pepall on behalf of the three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Master erred in law in his application of the Reid factors and upheld the decision of Justice Kristjanson.
Erland v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2018 ONSC 485
Successfully brought a motion to find the plaintiff in breach of a Court Order in an environmental damage claim and obtained a costs sanction of $3,500.