About Us
We have over 35 years of helping people and assisting those in need.
Martin & Hillyer is one of Ontario's pre-eminent law firms and has been a fixture in
the Burlington community ever since Bob Martin and Bruce Hillyer established the firm
in 1972.
For over 35 years the lawyers and staff at Martin & Hillyer have provided high
quality service to clients and have dedicated their practices to assisting those
in need.
Our commitment to our clients began early and is apparent from the prominent role
our lawyers play in the legal community.
Martin & Hillyer is a full service law firm
We provide experience in the following areas:
A sampling of cases argued by Stephen B. Abraham:
Dryden (Litigation Guardian of) v. Campbell Estate, [2001] O.J. No. 829In Dryden v. Campbell Estate, Stephen along with Bruce Hillyer and David Wands represented the Dryden family in a 25 day Trial. Mr. Dryden was severely injured as a result of an impaired, underaged driver who had just left a local tavern in the City of Burlington. The underaged driver slammed into the car containing 14 year old Scott Dryden.
It is believed that this is the only case in Canada where an individual has been found responsible for providing alcohol to another person who later caused a motor vehicle accident. We were also successful in advancing a claim against the tavern.
Stephen was also responsible for arguing the non-deductibility of accident benefits and was successful in having a Judge make a finding that an earlier case on point was wrongly decided.
For complete details click here.Dryden (Litigation guardian of) v. Campbell Estate, [2001] O.J. No. 4095
The Plaintiffs were successful in the Dryden v. Campbell Estate matter and were paid costs throughout the litigation. Stephen successfully argued that in addition to the payment of costs and assessable disbursements, the Plaintiffs’ lawyers should be paid a premium to reflect the measure of success achieved and the risk incurred by the Solicitors. Mr. Justice Cavarzan agreed with his submissions and assessed a premium in the amount of $100,000.00.
For complete details click here.Lehman v. GAN Canada Insurance Company, [1997] OIC A96-001417
In Lehman v. GAN Canada Insurance Company, Stephen argued the first Loss of Earning Capacity Benefit case in Ontario. He was successful in advocating on behalf of his client that he should receive benefits at the rate of $310.21 per week despite the initial position by GAN that he should receive zero.
Stephen also argued the first appeal with respect to the Loss of Earning Capacity Benefit on behalf of Mr. Lehman
For complete details read Part I and Part II .Stevenson v. Williams and Minister of Human Resources Development [2002], CPP Pension Appeals Board, CP 16290
In Stevenson v. Williams and the Minister of Human Resources Development, Stephen was retained to argue the appeal on Ms. Stevenson’s behalf. The Pension Appeals Board Hearing was conducted in Toronto at which time new evidence was presented on behalf of the Appellant. It should be pointed out that the earlier case was lost and Ms. Stevenson was not awarded benefits. In granting benefits to his client, the three Judges indicated that the evidence that was presented was “overwhelming”.
For complete details click here.Walker v. Sun Shelters Industries Inc., [2006] O.J. No. 2023
In Walker v. Sun Shelters Industries Inc., Stephen represented the Plaintiffs and was successful in advocating an award of damages at Trial. The Trial Judge agreed with Mr. Abraham’s assessment of the damages under all headings and awarded the Plaintiffs at the exact amounts requested. Madam Justice Mossip went on to describe the case as a “text book case on a Civil Trial”.
For complete details click here.A sampling of cases argued by David Hayward:
- In this decision the Applicant was successful in demonstrating that his neck surgery (and associated paralysis) was caused by motor vehicle accidents which occurred 4 years before the surgery. For complete details click here.
- The Applicant was injured while removing a load from his truck. The Applicant succeeded in demonstrating that his injury arose “out of the use and operation of a motor vehicle”. For complete details click here.
- An important decision as the Applicant succeeded in demonstrating that he was unable to work at any job because of depression. For complete details click here.
- One of the first FSCO Arbitration decisions where an Applicant successfully demonstrated that he was unable to perform any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training or experience. For complete details click here.
- An important decision which sets out the criteria courts will use in deciding whether an Applicant is required to attend an insurance medical examination. The Applicant succeeded in demonstrating that she was not required to attend the proposed assessment. For complete details click here.
- This decision deals with the issue of when the 2-day “cooling off” period begins to run. The Applicant succeeded in demonstrating that the settlement was not “enter into” until he had received the settlement documentation from the insurer (about 3 weeks after the initial settlement). This decision was upheld on appeal. For complete details click here.
Lawyers involved in this area of expertise at Martin & Hillyer include: