Personal Injury Litigation
David Himelfarb
Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2023
Awarded Practice Areas
Biography
David Himelfarb is head of the Litigation practice at the firm. He has extensive experience in civil litigation and has appeared before all levels of Courts and tribunals in the Province, including the Ontario Court of Appeal as well as the Supreme Court of Canada. He is acknowledged as an effective advocate and negotiator. Many of his cases have been reported and are utilized as precedents in the legal community.
His reputation and proven track record are supported by a long list of multi-million dollar settlements on behalf of his clients.
David received his LLB from the University of Windsor in 1987 and was called to the Bar in 1989. He is a member of the Advocates Society, Toronto Lawyer’s Association, Canadian Bar Association, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association and the Ontario Branch of the Canadian Bar Association.
Overview
- University of Windsor, LL.B, graduated 1987
- York University, Bachelor of Arts, graduated 1984
- Ontario, First Bar Admission- 1989
- Advocates Society - Member
- Canadian Bar Association - Member
- Ontario Branch of the Canadian Bar Association - Member
- Ontario Trial Lawyers Association - Member
- Toronto Lawyer’s Association - Member
- Ontario, First Bar Admission- 1989
- Advocates Society - Member
- Canadian Bar Association - Member
- Ontario Branch of the Canadian Bar Association - Member
- Ontario Trial Lawyers Association - Member
- Toronto Lawyer’s Association - Member
- University of Windsor, LL.B, graduated 1987
- York University, Bachelor of Arts, graduated 1984
Client Testimonials
Awards & Focus
Recognized in The Best Lawyers in Canada™ 2026 for work in:
- Personal Injury Litigation
News & Media
Additional Information
Case History
Cases
- Saharkhiz v. Underwriters, Members of Lloyd’s London, (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 255 (Ont. C.A.) and (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 154 (Ont. S.C.J.), affirmed
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge confirming that our client, a taxi driver, who was terribly beaten while arguing over the fare, suffered catastrophic injuries in an “accident” as defined by the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
- 941807 Ontario Ltd. v. Lennox Drum Ltd., 2003 CanLII 31888 (ON SC) and 180 OAC 95 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
Punitive damages awarded to our client arising out of bad faith in the execution of a commercial transaction. The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge’s decision in favour of our client.
- Salvador v. Mather, 41 O.R. (3d) 289, 37 C.P.C. (5th) 214 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
The Divisional Court granted our client the authority to set aside an order that she consented to dismissing her action that was obtained while she was represented by another lawyer. Mr. Himelfarb argued successfully that the client could not have legally understood that she had a valid cause of action at the time her previous lawyer agreed to abandon the case. Accordingly, the client was permitted to set aside the dismissal order and proceed with her case for compensation.
- Whiting v. Menu Foods Operating Limited Partnership, 2007 CanLII 43903 (ON SC)
In this class action case, Mr. Himelfarb’s legal team was granted class counsel status, permitting and authorizing them to proceed and eventually settle this well known class action involving tainted pet foods.
- New Generation Drywall Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Finance), [2004] O.J. No. 465 (S.C.J.)
Our client was successful at trial in a taxation case that had precedent ramifications for the drywall and acoustic ceiling tile industry in Ontario. The court adopted Mr. Himelfarb’s argument that residential drywall workers were not employees for the purpose of deducting and withholding Employers’ Health Tax.
- Decision No. 410/10, 2010 ONWSIAT 631, (Workplace Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal)
In this decision, Mr. Himelfarb won his client loss of earning benefits retroactive to 1991, for a sum of approximately $700,000.00.
- Subramanian v. Shetler, 2002, 61 O.R. (3d) 136 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
The Divisional Court refused the appeal of the Defendants who were ordered to enter defences in Ontario and enure to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Courts, when they were American and the accident occurred in America. The court in Ontario was convinced that the balance of convenience favoured our client’s jurisdiction.
Your browser is not fully compatible with our automatic printer friendly formatting.
Please use the print button to print this profile page.