A disappointing result is not negligence. To sue a lawyer, accountant, engineer or agent in Ontario you have to show they fell below the standard of a reasonably competent member of their profession, and that the failure — not the underlying risk — is what cost you money.
Our charges include applicable taxes. Disbursements are extra and billed at cost — itemized upfront, in writing, never hidden.
From $450.87 taxes included
A duty of care, usually arising from the retainer, though it can extend to people who were not clients — the intended beneficiary of a botched will is the classic example. Then a breach of the standard of care. Then causation. Then a quantifiable loss.
The standard is reasonable competence measured at the time, on the information then available, not with the benefit of what everyone knows now. Where a professional chose between reasonable options, the choice does not become negligent because a different one would have turned out better.
Causation is usually the hardest element, not breach. You must show what would have happened had the advice been right. In a claim about a lawsuit that was lost or never brought, that means proving the underlying case — the trial within the trial. Plaintiffs regularly establish that a professional got it wrong and still fail here.
You will generally need an expert from the same field to say what a competent practitioner would have done in the circumstances. The exception is a failure so plain it needs no expert — missing a limitation period outright being the standard example.
That expert is the main cost driver, and it is the reason professional negligence claims are often uneconomic below a certain value. Get a realistic budget for the whole file, expert included, before you commit to it.
Many claims sit better in negligent misrepresentation than in pure negligence: a relationship close enough to create a duty, a representation that was untrue, inaccurate or misleading, negligence in making it, reasonable reliance on it, and loss flowing from that reliance. It is a different route to the same money, and sometimes an easier one.
Two years from when you knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that you had suffered a loss, that it was caused by the professional, and that a proceeding was an appropriate way to deal with it. The Limitations Act, 2002 presumes you knew on the day the act or omission occurred unless you prove otherwise.
This is where professional negligence claims are genuinely fought, because the harm often surfaces years later — a tax structure that fails on reassessment, a title defect that appears when you try to sell, a deadline missed in a file you thought was still running. There is also an ultimate limitation measured from the act itself, whatever you knew.
Do not assume an ongoing relationship pauses anything. If you suspect a problem, take advice on the limitation position immediately and preserve the entire file — every email, every version, every attendance note you have.
Regulators discipline; they do not compensate. The Law Society of Ontario, CPA Ontario, Professional Engineers Ontario, the Ontario Association of Architects and RECO under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002 can investigate and sanction. None of them will write you a cheque for your loss.
Complaining can be worth doing, but it is not free of risk to your civil claim. Statements made in a complaint process become documents, and a regulator's decision to take no action is something a defendant will put in front of a judge.
Insurance is why these claims are worth bringing where the loss is real. Ontario lawyers carry professional liability coverage through LawPRO, and most other regulated professionals carry errors and omissions cover. Put the professional on notice early and in writing so they can report the matter to their insurer — an insured defendant is a defendant who can pay.
It is the clearest kind of breach, and often the one situation where expert evidence is unnecessary. But breach is only step two of four. You still have to prove the claim you lost was worth something — that you would have succeeded, and for how much. A missed deadline on a claim that would have failed anyway produces no damages.
Usually yes, from the same field, to establish what a competent practitioner would have done. Courts do not treat their own view of good practice as a substitute. The exception is conduct so obviously below standard that no specialised knowledge is needed to see it.
Only if the reassessment resulted from work that fell below the standard of a competent accountant, rather than from an aggressive but defensible position you were told carried risk. Where the risk was explained and you accepted it, the reassessment is the risk materialising, not negligence. The engagement letter and the advice on file usually decide this.
No. Regulators protect the public through discipline, not compensation. There are limited funds in some professions for losses caused by dishonesty rather than negligence, which is a different thing entirely. If you want the loss recovered, that is a civil claim.
More than an ordinary contract claim, mostly because of the expert. That is why the first honest question is whether the provable loss justifies the process. A clear-cut case with a substantial documented loss and an insured defendant is very different from a modest claim needing two experts to establish.
Open your file tonight — a licensed Ontario lawyer will confirm everything with you by tomorrow.