Daniel Michaelson is the founder and principal lawyer at Michaelson Law, a boutique personal injury firm with a strong emphasis on client-focused advocacy and a deft hands-on approach. He has a diverse, multi-decade litigation practice encompassing motor vehicle accidents, product liability, medical malpractice, fire loss, and particularly in mass community-based torts and class actions. He is well known for his exceptional legal analysis and client-first approach, and regularly represents clients at all levels of court. He has extensive experience representing clients in Northern Ontario and throughout Indigenous communities. Daniel’s expertise in complex cases made him a sought-after resource among his peers, and he frequently speaks on issues relevant to the personal injury bar. He is also actively engaged in the Jewish-Canadian community and speaks Hebrew and French.
Daniel Michaelson
Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2024 Awarded Practice Areas
Personal Injury Litigation
Biography
Locations
Languages
- French
- Hebrew
- English
Education
- York University, History and Archeology, Cum Laude, Top Graduating Student, graduated 2003
- University of Western Ontario, Law, graduated 2007
Bar Admissions
Affiliations
- The Advocates Society - Member
- Law Society of Upper Canada - Member
Client Testimonials
Awards & Focus
Recognized in The Best Lawyers in Canada™ 2026 for work in:
- Personal Injury Litigation
Case History
Cases
- Amin v. CAA Insurance Company 2026 CanLII 6233 · Licence Appeal Tribunal (AABS)
Daniel established a catastrophic impairment under Ontario's auto-insurance regime — the highest-stakes determination in accident-benefits law, for a severe abdominal crush injury and corresponding severe impairments. The Tribunal accepted a combined 55% whole-person impairment over the insurer's contested ratings, unlocking the enhanced benefits a catastrophic designation provides. The decision was affirmed in Reconsideration.
- Pugliese v. Chartwell 2024 ONSC 1135
Co-counsel in one of eight proposed class actions arising from COVID-19 outbreaks in Ontario long-term-care homes. In March 2024 the court certified six of the eight actions — including the Chartwell action — to proceed as class proceedings in negligence, clearing a pivotal hurdle in one of the largest efforts to seek accountability for what happened in long-term care during the pandemic. The litigation is ongoing.
- Decision No. 333/16 2016 ONWSIAT 956 ·
On appeal from a denial by the Work Safety Insurance Board, Daniel won recognition of a permanent shoulder impairment for an injured worker and his entitlement to a non-economic loss award — overturning the Board's finding after a hearing on the merits.
- Azzopardi v. John Doe 2014 ONSC 4685
A motorcyclist was seriously injured after being cut off by an unidentified vehicle — no contact, no witnesses. Daniel defeated the insurer's summary judgement motion to deny coverage, winning a notable ruling that medical evidence of the 'mechanism of injury' can satisfy the corroboration the policy requires in unidentified-driver claims, and allowing the case to proceed trial.
- Kidman v. Christoforatou 2012 ONSC 2981
A fire in a converted residential building killed two children and seriously injured another. Acting for the family in a $5-million claim, Daniel defeated the defendants' motion for summary judgment and won costs, allowing the case to proceed to a full trial on the disputed wiring, fire-separation and smoke-alarm failures.
- White (Re) 2009 CanLII 92119; 98 O.R. (3d) 291
In a reported decision, Daniel's team had a claim by a trustee in bankruptcy dismissed for inordinate delay — persuading the court that a trustee, as an officer of the court, is held to a higher standard than a private litigant — and recovered the $200,000 in sale proceeds that had been held in court, due to the prejudice to the family.
- Atilho v. Malaviya 2010 CarswellOnt 11050
Daniel successfully argued a duty to defend motion where an insurer denied coverage in a motorcycle accident.
- Dudgeon v. Canadian Career College 2010 ONSC 3598
Daniel successfully argued a summary judgement motion against his client to dismiss her claim as it was commenced after the impugned limitation date. Daniel argued that her damages were only discovered beyond the de minimus threshold for discoverability once she had sufficient medical evidence to support a more significant claim, thus extending the limitation period.
- Fromm v. Rajani 2009 CanLII 46176
Daniel argued a successful motion where the Plaintiff refused to attend a Defence medical expert assessment, arguing that the appointment was too close to trial and thus prejudicial to the Plaintiff. Further, the Defendant had years to prepare for trial and could have asked for the both the assessment and the motion at an earlier stage that would not have jeopardized the trial date.
- Fuda v. Fuda 2010 CarswellOnt 11051; and 2011 CarswellOnt 15439
Daniel argued a successful motion and appeal in a dog attack case, where the Defendant sought to examine his minor client as a witness. Daniel argued that his oral evidence could not be elicited due to a real potential for psychological harm, and his evidence could be adduced through written means alternatively.
- Sauve v. Tavares 2012 ONSC 2550
Daniel argued this motion successfully upholding the Plaintiff's choice of jurisdiction in which he commenced his action.
- Ouderkirk v. Clarry 2008 CarswellOnt 9358 (ONSC)
Daniel argued a successful motion at trial excluding the Defendant's surveillance video evidence of the Plaintiff due to its existence being withheld to trial to ambush the Plaintiff.
- Khroad v. Hill 2010 ONSC 945
Daniel argued a motion successfully to add a Defendant after a limitation date based on the legal principle of discoverability and misnomer.
Your browser is not fully compatible with our automatic printer friendly formatting.
Please use the print button to print this profile page.
