• ABOUT

  • CASES

  • COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

  • PUBLICATIONS

  • ENGAGEMENTS

  • BLOG

Colin completed his articles with a mid-sized insurance defence boutique in Toronto and has worked as an associate on both the Plaintiff and Defence sides of the personal injury industry. He has appeared before the Ontario Superior Court and has prepared materials for the Ontario Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal. Colin has experience with motor vehicle accident claims, including tort and accident benefits claims, occupiers' liability, medical malpractice, and long term disability disputes. 

Outside of law, Colin is passionate about physical training and philosophy. He trains regularly in Olympic weightlifting and mixed martial-arts, including Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Muay Thai. He cultivates connections in his community and in Ontario more broadly, to encourage the betterment of people and the communities they live in. 

 

WORK EXPERIENCE 

Partner, Schultz Law Group LLP, Toronto (January 2024 - Present) 

Associate, Schultz Law Group LLP, Toronto (March 2021 - January 2024) 

Associate, Steinmetz & Associates, Toronto (April 2019 - March 2021)

Associate, Black Sutherland LLP, Toronto (June 2018 - April 2019)

Student-at-Law, Black Sutherland LLP, Toronto (July 2017 - June 2018)

 

EDUCATION

Year of Call: 2018

Juris Doctor, University of Western Ontario (2017) 

Bachelor of Arts, Ryerson University (2013)

 

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS

Ontario Bar Association

Economical and Arifi
2024-11-28
READ NOW
READ SUMMARY
“The issue of medical evidence in support of claims for chronic pain and/or chronic pain syndrome is one that frequently comes before the License Appeal Tribunal for disputes. Where an Applicant can prove a diagnosis of Chronic Pain Syndrome within the AMA Guides, or where they can prove a diagnosis of “chronic pain” with a corresponding impairment of their function, they will be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline. In the recent LAT Decision of Arifi v. Economical Insurance, Adjudicator Beauchesne clearly set out some important principles for medical evidence on these issues. With respect to the various factors for Chronic Pain Syndrome in the AMA Guides, the LAT held that relying “heavily” on prescription medication is not the same thing as “use of prescription drugs beyond the recommended duration” and does not constitute “abuse” of prescription medication. The LAT also confirmed that an Applicant’s self-reporting on things like withdrawal from social milieu are insufficient to satisfy that branch of the test, even if those self-reports are included in a treating physician’s records. The LAT held that reliance on the “injury list” portion of a Disability Certificate (OCF-3) is insufficient to demonstrate an injury outside the MIG unless those injuries are corroborated by other contemporaneous medical evidence. In this case, no such evidence was referred to. Lastly, the LAT made reference to a number of points where the Applicant’s written submissions and self-reports to treating physicians was inconsistent with the objective surveillance evidence obtained by the Respondent. These findings reiterate the importance of strategic investigations being conducted early on and throughout the life of a claim file. While it is certainly not the case that every surveillance report will contain a “smoking gun” so-to-speak, the potential value of evidence showing an Applicant engaging in much more functionally demanding activity than they reportedly are able to sustain is incalculable. This is true not just in the context of MIG disputes, but also in the context of CAT disputes, where impairment of function is often the determining factor between a CAT claim and a non-CAT claim. I recommend that anyone advancing arguments that an Applicant’s self-reporting to a family physician, in the absence of other supporting medical opinion evidence, is insufficient to establish a claim for chronic pain and/or a removal from the MIG on that basis.
Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada v. Zurich Insurance Company, 2024 ONSC 2929
2024-05-23
Rahvar v. Economical Insurance, 2024 ONLAT 23-009837/AABS-PI
2024-04-29
Anderson v. Economical Insurance, 2024 ONLAT 22-011735/AABS
2024-03-05
Golden v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2024 ONLAT 22-000651/AABS
2024-02-27
Majumder v. Sonnet Insurance Company 2024 ONLAT 23-005475/AABS-PI
2024-02-07
Saab v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 ONLAT 21-012807AABS
2023-10-25
READ NOW
READ SUMMARY
For anyone who gets an argument from opposing counsel about deficient notice letters, check out this decision. Not only does it reiterate the well established principle that insurers are not doctors, and their notice letters do not need to be perfect. This decision also held that insurers do not need to “refer to specific pieces of evidence” in their denial letters.
21-007004/AABS Brounilnta Retezepai vs. Economical Insurance Company
2023-09-13
READ NOW
READ SUMMARY
The Applicant claimed to have a diagnosis of a concussion but the LAT agreed that the “?” next to the word concussion meant there was no diagnosis.
The Duty of Utmost Good Faith
by Colin MacDonald 2022-04-12
READ NOW
READ SUMMARY
<p>This paper on the duty of utmost good faith in the context of auto insurance and accident benefits is to be published in the Oatley McLeish Guide for Motor Vehicle Accidents. The paper outlines the legal history of this duty, beginning with Smith v. Cooperators and proceeding to more recent cases such as Tomec v. Economical. </p> <p>It also addresses the manner in which the duty cuts both ways, with the establishment of the independent actionable wrong principle from Whiten v. Pilot, and the possibility for insureds to pay punitive damages to insurers when they breach this duty, such as in RBC General Insurance v. Field. </p> <p>The paper discusses the consumer protection purpose of accident benefits legislation in Ontario, and provides a primer on the impact of self-representation by insured persons. </p> <p>It was authored by Kadey B.J. Schultz, and Colin MacDonald, and presented at the Osgoode Certificate in Motor Vehicle Accident Law and Practice: Tort and Accident Benefits Conference on April 12, 2022</p> <p> </p>
Colin's Latest Speaking Engagements
Search By Year
SELECT DATE
Past EventsDateCity
Costs: What You Need to Know2024-02-09Toronto

Strategic Use of Rule 49 Offers: and other resources under the Rules
                        Colin MacDonald, Schultz Law Group LLP

MORE ABOUT THIS EVENT

Defending Accident Benefits Claims: A Crash Course2023-06-09Toronto

MORE ABOUT THIS EVENT

Priority and Loss Transfer Across Provincial and International Borders
by Colin MacDonald 2023-12-21