Our Lawyers

“Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.” – Abraham Lincoln.
Meet The Schneider Brothers

Jono Schneider

Jono Schneider

Jono is a co-founder and partner at Schneider Law Firm.  He completed a degree in economics at McGill University in 2004, obtained his law degree from Queens Law School in 2008, and was called to the bar in Ontario in 2009.  He has been practicing personal injury litigation, insurance litigation, property loss, and high-end litigation ever since.  Jono has substantial experience handling catastrophic loss claims, death, brain injury, orthopedic injuries, chronic pain syndrome, psychological disability, and property loss claims.

Jono started out working at one of the largest law firms in Canada and came to realize that he wanted to help people in a more personal capacity.  Jono has been helping personal injury victims ever since and is known as a tenacious litigator.  He has proceeded to trial and arbitration on several occasions where he has obtained results including proving an inability to return to work, access to enhanced medical benefits, and penalties against the insurance companies for treating accident victims in bad faith.

Jono has an entrepreneurial spirit and economics background which provides an added advantage to his clients in addition to his legal expertise.  Jono understands the particular challenges that face self-employed accident victims and uses that knowledge to help advance their cases.

When not at work he is actively involved in playing sports including basketball, baseball, and ball hockey.  He is a world traveler including spending time in South America, South East Asia, the far East, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe.  He plays poker, enjoys a good book, and is the ultimate Raptors fan.

Jono is a hard worker who makes sure that his clients get the best representation possible.  He enjoys acting as an advocate and cares deeply about his client’s rights.

Get Connected:

Email: jschneider@schneiderlawfirm.ca
Phone: 905-889-5300 x 289

Law Clerk: Sarah Aghajan: saghajan@schneiderlawfirm.ca
Phone: 905-889-5300 x 239

Law Clerk: Mynthiny Math: mmath@schneiderlawfirm.ca
Phone: 905-889-5300 x 235

Law Clerk: Esha Rani: erani@schneiderlawfirm.ca
Phone: 905-889-5300 x 286

Law Clerk: Mary Romeo mromeo@schneiderlawfirm.ca
Phone: 905-889-5300 x 221

 

REPORTED DECISIONS (limited 2013-2018) by date

  • Shannon Hamilton v Social Justice Tribunal, 1609-04696

A hearing to determine whether or not Ms. Hamilton was entitled to compensation as a result of a shooting.

  • Magdalene Agbonlahor v Unifund Assrance, 17-554/AABS

A hearing to determine whether or not Ms. Agbonlahor was required to send her own insurance company the results of a medical examination that was conducted in the case against another insurance company in the tort action.

  • Magdalene Agbonlahor v Unifund Assrance, 17-554/AABS

A hearing to determine whether or not the insurance company is required to disclose the actual raw test data that their psychologist had Ms. Agbonlahor complete.

  • Jaclyn Lefebvre v. Aviva Insurance, Divisional Court, 2018 ONSC 5676

An appeal regarding whether or not Ms. Lefebvre had applied for benefits to her insurance company.

  • Suvisiny Sivananthan v Coachman Insurance Appeal, 2018-05-08, Reg 34/10

An appeal to the finding that Ms. Sivananthan was entitled to all benefits disputed in the original arbitration.

  • M. v Certas Direct Insurance, 2018 CanLII 2305

A hearing disputing the insurance company’s decision to limit the Applicant’s entitlement to medical benefits.

  • Michael Harrison v Mylwaganam et al., CV-16-126909 (unreported)

A hearing disputing the insurance company’s decision to pursue Mr. Harrison for missing information.

  • Suvisiny Sivananthan v Coachman Insurance, Arbitration, 2017-11-17, Reg 34/10

An arbitration disputing the denial of Ms. Sivananthan’s wage loss benefits, medical benefits, and a special award.

  • Sameena Mir et. al. v Allstate Insurance et al. 2017 ONSC 6267

A hearing to determine whether or not the insurance company is required to disclose the surveillance they obtained of Ms. Mir.

  • Baljit Sandhu v Aviva Insurance et al., CV-14-5875 (unreported)

A hearing disputing the insurance company’s decision to pursue Mrs. Sandhu for missing information.

  • Bindu Patel v Unifund Assurance. Arbitration, 2017-11-17, Reg 34/10

An arbitration disputing the denial of whether or not Ms. Patel suffers from a “catastrophic impairment”, her treatment benefits, and a special award.

  • Thoi Nguyen v Kojo. 2017 ONSC 2014

A hearing disputing the insurance company’s demand that Mr. Nguyen attend an appointment with a physiatrist prior to his trial.

  • Bindu Patel v Unifund Assurance. FSCO A15-8374

A hearing to determine whether or not the insurance company could require Ms. Patel to attend appointments with their doctors and to delay the scheduled hearing.

  • A. v Certas Direct Insurance. 17-787/AABS

A hearing disputing the insurance company’s decision to deny payment of a wage loss benefit, medical expenses, and a special award.

  • J. v Travelers Insurance. 2017 CanLII 81575

A hearing disputing the insurance company’s decision to deny that a 6 year old girl was covered by her parents insurance, the denial of payment for her psychological counselling, and a special award.

  • Neil Bolen v Jastrzebska. 2017 ONWSIAT 331

A hearing disputing whether or not Mr. Bolen is legally permitted to sue the defendant.

  • Javed Rentiya v Wawanesa Insurance. Arbitration, 2016-09-19, Reg 34/10

An arbitration disputing the termination of Mr. Rentiya’s income replacement benefits, the non-payment of his treatment, and a special award.

  • Atwal v Reilly Groups et al. Decision No. 130/16

A hearing disputing whether or not Mr. Atwal is legally permitted to sue the defendant.

  • Yodit Lakew v Munro. 2014 ONSC 7316

A dispute over costs at the conclusion of a three week jury trial.

Cary Schneider

Cary Schneider

Cary is a co-founder and partner at Schneider Law Firm.  He completed a degree in political science at McGill University in 1996, obtained his law degree from Osgoode Hall in 1999, and was called to the bar in Ontario in 2001.  He has a diploma from Harvard University in cybersecurity, is a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), and a Certified Information Privacy Professional / Canada (CIPP/C).  He has been practicing personal injury litigation, all forms of insurance litigation, and cyber / privacy law ever since.  Cary has substantial experience handling catastrophic loss claims, death, brain injury, orthopedic injuries, chronic pain syndrome, psychological disability, and property loss claims.  In addition, he has specialized interest involving cyber breaches of personal privacy information.

For the first 19 years of his practice, Cary primarily worked for insurance companies at a top downtown Toronto law firm and knows how they think.  Cary was a contact partner at his prior law firm for many of the largest insurance companies in the country focusing on representing the interests of these large corporations.  He now uses that considerable inside knowledge to assist individuals in their insurance disputes.  He is a successful and experienced litigator having attended Jury Trials, Judge Alone Trials, Court of Appeal, Divisional Court, Director Delegate Appeals, License Appeal Reconsiderations, Arbitrations, and complex Superior Court Motions such as Summary Judgment motions.  Between 2013 – 2018 he has a total of 35 reported or pending decisions.

Cary is the founder and author of a quarterly newsletter that addresses wide-ranging insurance related topics that is currently in its 12th year of publication.  His articles are used as resource materials for post-secondary education for training for insurance professionals and have been re-published in industry journals such as Without Prejudice, Canadian Underwriter, and Canadian Corporate Counsel.  He has been a presenter at continuing legal conferences to educate other lawyers about personal injury litigation.

When not at work he is actively involved in playing sports including baseball, ball hockey, and golf.  He is the head coach of his son’s baseball team, is an avid reader, enjoys travel, and the ultimate Toronto Blue Jay baseball fan.

Cary focuses on being effective and efficient in his law practice with the goal of achieving excellent results for his clients in a timely matter. He has strong advocacy skills and takes great pride in ensuring that his clients are well served.

Get Connected:

Email: cschneider@schneiderlawfirm.ca
Phone: 905-889-5300 x 285

Law Clerk: Sarah Aghajan: saghajan@schneiderlawfirm.ca
Phone: 905-889-5300 x 239

Law Clerk: Mynthiny Math: mmath@schneiderlawfirm.ca
Phone: 905-889-5300 x 235

Law Clerk: Esha Rani: erani@schneiderlawfirm.ca
Phone: 905-889-5300 x 286

Law Clerk: Mary Romeo mromeo@schneiderlawfirm.ca
Phone: 905-889-5300 x 221

 

REPORTED DECISIONS (limited 2013-2018)

  • Otto v. Sin (2013) Jury Trial

Jury Trial commenced by two married plaintiffs (doctor and nurse) who were involved in a motor vehicle claiming compensation for general and special damages.

  • Cipriani v. Chang (2013) Jury Trial

Jury Trial commenced by an insurance broker involved in a motor vehicle accident claiming compensation for general and special damages.

  • Gayathri v. State Farm (2013) Arbitration

Arbitration regarding a claim for housekeeping and caregiving accident benefits.

  • Sharooz v. Lin (2014) Superior Court Determination of Law Motion

Superior Court Determination of Law precedent setting motion regarding priority of insurance in a tort claim revolving around the use and operation of a rental vehicle.

  • Zaya v. State Farm (2015) Arbitration

Arbitration precedent setting claim revolving entitlement to caregiving and housekeeping benefits in transitional policy claims.

  • Bragg v. Ward (2015) Superior Court Summary Judgement Motion

Superior Court Summary Judgement Motion regarding the consent to operate a vehicle between spouses.

  • Chernet v. RBC General Insurance Company (2015) Arbitration

Three week Arbitration revolving a claim for catastrophic determination and entitlement to all heads of benefits in an accident benefits claim.

  • Fennel v. Deol (2016) Ontario Court of Appeal

Ontario Court of Appeal regarding the issue of limitation periods pertaining to the issuance of a claim and crossclaim.

  • Sorita v. Sorita (2016) Superior Court Summary Judgment Motion

Superior Court Summary Judgment Motion addressing the issue of a missed limitation period pertaining to the issuance of a claim.

 

  • Ismail v. State Farm (2016) FSCO Motion

FSCO Motion addressing the right of an insurer to be entitled to proceed with insurer examinations in a catastrophic claim and impact on Arbitration date.

  • Kulaveerasingam v. State Farm (2016) Director’s Delegate Appeal

Director’s Delegate Appeal pertaining to the issue of determination of the proper calculation of pre-judgment interest in a transitional policy claim.

  • Rezaiezadeh v. State Farm (2016) Director’s Delegate Appeal

Addressing a claim for non-earner benefits and medical benefits.

  • Contreras v. State Farm (2017) Arbitration

Arbitration addressing the claim for income replacement benefits and non-earner benefits.

  • J.S. v. RBC General Insurance Company (2017) LAT Arbitration

LAT Arbitration addressing the entitlement to medical benefits in an accident benefits claim.

  • Kulaveerasingam v. State Farm (2017) Divisional Court Motion

Divisional Court Motion regarding the ability for a claimant to enforce a Judgment before the hearing of an appeal.

  • Maqsood v. RBC General Insurance Company (2017) LAT Motion

LAT Motion addressing the issue of the entitlement to costs in a License Appeal Tribunal manner after the claimant unilaterally withdrew claim shortly before a hearing.

  • MB v. RBC General Insurance Company (2017) LAT Preliminary Issue Hearing

LAT Preliminary Issue Hearing addressing the requirement for a claimant to attend at an insurer medical examination before commencing with an Arbitration.

  • Mohamed v Arabkaramy (2017) Superior Court Motion

Superior Court Motion addressing the issue of the missed limitation period pertaining to the service of a Statement of Claim.

  • CT v. RBC General Insurance Company (2017) LAT Arbitration

LAT Arbitration dealing with the entitlement for a claim for medical benefits addressing a unique claim for medical benefits.

  • Contreras v. State Farm (2017) Director’s Delegate Appeal

Director’s Delegate Appeal pertaining to the right to proceed with a claim for non-earner benefits after a denial of income replacement benefits.

  • Delaney v. State Farm (2017) Arbitration

Arbitration addressing a claim for non-earner benefits in a catastrophic claim.

  • Kulaveerasingam v. State Farm (2017) Divisional Court Appeal

Divisional Court Appeal precedent setting decision addressing the entitlement to pre-judgment interest in transitional policy claims.

  • Rodine v. Pembridge (2017) Arbitration

Arbitration pertaining to claims for non-earner benefits, attendant care, and medical benefits.

  • Blythe v. RBC General Insurance Company (2018) Motion

Precedent-setting motion addressing the proper notice to be provided by an insurer to schedule an insurer examination.

  • Scott v. RSA (2018) Motion

Motion on the admissibility of surveillance evidence.

  • Unica Insurance v. State Farm Insurance Company (2018) Arbitration

Loss transfer arbitration regarding the applicability of which fault determination rules apply and liability.

  • Scott v. RSA (2018) Arbitration

Arbitration regarding the entitlement to Non-Earner Benefits for a 16 year old claimant dealing with the issue of causation and disability.

  • Kulaveerasingam v. State Farm (2018) Director’s Delegate Appeal

Addressing the issue of variation of an award of benefits following receipt of collateral benefits after an Arbitration.

  • Kumar v. Allstate (2018) Preliminary Issue Hearing

Addressing issue of non-attendance at IE assessment, non-attendance at EUO, and limitation periods.

  • Calabrese v. State Farm (2018) Summary Judgement Motion

Motion regarding attempt to set aside a settlement due to an allegation of bad faith

  • Shay v. Aviva (2018) Arbitration and Reconsideration (results pending)

Entitlement for medical benefits and procedural issues pertaining to expert witnesses

  • Padam v. RSA (2018) Preliminary Issue Hearing (results pending)

Production of medical records not requested by IE doctors and adjusting notes in relation to privilege

  • Kauser v. Allstate (2018) Preliminary Issue Hearing (results pending)

Determination if an applicant was “employed” as per the Schedule for entitlement to IRBs

  • Hill v. Allstate (2018) Arbitration (results pending)

Determination of entitlement to medical benefits in a chronic pain syndrome matter

  • Kulaveerasingam v. State Farm (2018) Divisional Court Motion

The right of a claimant to enforce a judgment pending an appeal.