Tara Lemke
Partner
Insurance Law; Personal Injury; Professional Liability; Commercial Litigation; Appellate Advocacy; Trial Advocacy
Contact
T: 613-237-0520 x270 F: 613-237-3163
tlemke@williamslitigation.ca
Called To The Bar: 2005
Assistant
Sylvia Lothian
T: 613-237-0520 x215
slothian@williamslitigation.ca
Tara is an experienced litigator and has been practicing in Ottawa since her call to the bar in 2005. She represents both insurers and individuals with a focus on litigation including motor vehicle liability, slip and falls, sexual assaults, professional negligence, brain injuries and product liability.
She has a particular specialization in Accident Benefits ranging from disputes over treatment plans to catastrophic impairments with complex causation questions.
She has regularly appeared before the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Court of Appeal and License Appeal Tribunal of Ontario.
Tara enjoys the challenge of applying the law to individual circumstances and recognizes the important role that human factors may play in a case.
In her spare time, Tara volunteers with the Kiwanis Club of Ottawa where she is co-chair of the annual Holiday Hamper committee which provides a week’s worth of food to low income families in Ottawa for the holidays.
Credentials
- LL.B, Queens’ University, Kingston, Ontario (2004)
- B.A., General Arts, Ottawa University, Ottawa, Ontario (2001)
- Honours B.Sc., Biochemistry, Ottawa University, Ottawa, Ontario (2000)
Selected Professional Activities
- Speaker at CCLA’s Annual Civil Litigation Conference 2018
- Speaker at CCLA’s Annual Civil Litigation Conference 2017
- Mentor, University of Ottawa
- Member of the Ontario Bar Association
- Member of the Carleton County Law Association
- Member of the Advocates Society
Selected Cases
-
M.F. vs Belair Insurance, 2019 ONLAT 18-003847/AABS
Tara successfully defended this LAT dispute relating to various treatment plans and post-104 income replacement benefits. The Adjudicator accepted her argument that the Applicant’s alleged psychological difficulties were caused by other life stressors and not the sequellae from the accident. While the Applicant’s back pain was found to be causally related to the accident, it was not sufficient to lead to a complete inability within the meaning of the post-104 IRB test.
-
MacKinnon v. Irvine Funeral Home, 2019 ONSC 4464
Tara Lemke successfully brought a summary judgment motion on behalf of the funeral home to strike the Plaintiff’s claim in its entirety. This case arose from the tragic demise of the Plaintiff’s son in a car crash and a dispute between the Plaintiff and his estranged former spouse over how the deceased’s remains were to be dealt with. The Plaintiff claimed against the funeral home for breach of contract, deceit and intentional infliction of mental distress. Justice Gomery concluded that the evidence presented did not support the causes of action being alleged and granted the motions for summary judgment brought on behalf of each of the Defendants.
Aviva v. Economical Mutual and Unifund Assurance, private arbitration, May 24, 2016, Arbitrator Bialkowski
Tara successfully brought a priority dispute against Economical and Unifund for the payment of accident benefits. The claimant was a minor child and a passenger in a loaner vehicle driven by his father at the time of the accident. The vehicle had been provided by a garage while the mother’s vehicle was being repaired. The garage vehicle was insured by Aviva at all material times. His parents each had individual policies of insurance with Economical (father) and Unifund (mother). Priority had been denied on the basis that Aviva was equal in priority as a temporary substitute automobile and that the minor child was not “principally financially dependent” on one of his parents. Arbitrator Bilakowski found that the minor child was dependent on his parents as named insureds under the Economical and Unifund policies. As such, Economical and Unifund were ahead of Aviva in priority and the claimant has the unexercised discretion as to which of the two insurers were to provide benefits.
Chaudhary v. Kabir, 2012 ONSC 4985
The Defendant brought a motion before Justice Ray to remove Plaintiff’s counsel on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest. Tara, who was defending the motion, was successful in having the motion dismissed with costs.
-
Mahamba v. Bwenge 2017 ONSC 3260
Tara successfully defended this appeal from a Small Claims Court Judgment to the Divisional Court. Central to the Appeal was the question of whether or not Deputy Justice Fortier had correctly applied the law as it related to unjust enrichment and whether or not the defence of change of position applied.