Jonah Waxman

Jonah Waxman is an associate in Lawrences’ Litigation Group. Before joining Lawrences, Jonah worked at a boutique litigation firm in Hamilton since his call to the bar in 2012. He has managed numerous complex litigation matters and has extensive experience in trials before both judge and jury and judge alone. He has also argued numerous matters before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and several administrative tribunals.

Because of his courtroom experience, Jonah has been asked to present mock trial demonstrations before the legal community. He is skilled at navigating clients through the legal and emotional complexities of a lawsuit, while ensuring that they feel understood and informed at all stages of the process.

Representative Work

• T.I. v. Allstate Insurance: Acted on behalf of an Applicant who was disabled from returning to work. The Respondent refused to reinstate the Applicant’s weekly income benefits. The Arbitrator found in favour of the Applicant after a multiday hearing involving both direct and cross-examinations of expert witnesses.
• Myers-Gordon (Litigation Guardian of) v. Martin: Acted as co-counsel for the Plaintiff, a brain-injured young woman, on a contentious motion that ultimately found that the Defendant, an underinsurer, was obligated to pay out the full limits of their policy on top of what was owed by the remaining Defendants. This case was included in Thomson Reuters’ Canadian Cases on the Law of Insurance as well as its Litigator services.
• Rivera v. British Columbia Life & Casualty Co.: Acted on behalf of an Applicant on a motion that successfully found that the Respondent was in contravention of Ontario law. The Court found that the Respondent’s disability policy permitted deductions and credits to which they were not entitled. The Court found the decision to have potential significance to the insurance law industry as a whole.
• T.R. v. TD Insurance: Acted on behalf of the Plaintiff in a successful defence of a summary judgment motion, specifically in relation to the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. After reading and hearing Jonah’s submissions, the court specifically noted that the carrier’s conduct remained a “significant, or triable” issue