Elisabeth van Rensburg
Elisabeth has a broad insurance litigation practice. She has extensive experience acting for individuals, entities, and public sector organizations in bodily injury, accident benefits, professional liability, recreation & sport liability, tavern liability, commercial general liability, environmental, construction, subrogation, and coverage matters. She provides expert, cost-effective, and timely advice to her clients at every stage of the litigation process.
Elisabeth has a broad insurance litigation practice. She has extensive experience acting for individuals, entities, and public sector organizations in bodily injury, accident benefits, professional liability, recreation & sport liability, tavern liability, commercial general liability, environmental, construction, subrogation, and coverage matters. She provides expert, cost-effective, and timely advice to her clients at every stage of the litigation process.
Elisabeth has a broad insurance litigation practice. She has extensive experience acting for individuals, entities, and public sector organizations in bodily injury, accident benefits, professional liability, recreation & sport liability, tavern liability, commercial general liability, environmental, construction, subrogation, and coverage matters. She provides expert, cost-effective, and timely advice to her clients at every stage of the litigation process.
Elisabeth’s expertise extends beyond insurance. Clients retain her to handle commercial, environmental, and real estate disputes. She has previously acted for clients in civil sexual assault, medical malpractice, quasi-criminal, and employment law matters. Her understanding of the litigation process from start to finish gives her clients confidence in her advice.
Elisabeth has earned a reputation with her clients and colleagues as a natural advocate inside and outside the courtroom. In addition to conducting 3 civil jury trials in the first 6 years of her practice, she regularly acts for clients in administrative proceedings and private arbitrations. She has conducted hundreds of examinations for discovery and examinations under oath. She is also an experienced negotiator, having participated in well over 100 mediations.
Elisabeth previously worked as in-house litigation counsel for one of Canada’s largest insurers. Prior to going in-house, Elisabeth had a broad plaintiff-oriented civil litigation practice at a well-regarded litigation boutique. Her understanding of insurance litigation from a plaintiff’s point of view is invaluable to her clients.
Elisabeth’s clients retain her not only for her skills but also because she genuinely enjoys building long-lasting solicitor-client relationships. Outside of work, Elisabeth is a hobbyist who currently enjoys travelling, staying active, playing the piano, cooking 100 new recipes per year, and working on her local history project called “Humber History”. Elisabeth sits on the Board of Directors for Heritage York.
- Bodily Injury Defence
- Accident Benefits/License Appeal Tribunal (LAT)
- Loss Transfer and Priority Disputes
- Subrogation
- Occupiers’ Liability
- Commercial Host Liability
- Property and Commercial General Liability
- Sport and Recreation Liability
- Products Liability
- Coverage Opinions/Disputes
- Appeals and Counsel Work in Complex Cases
- Environmental Litigation
- Real Estate Litigation
- Professional Negligence / Errors & Omissions
- Professional Liability Litigation
Reuben Wells Leonard Course Prize in Evidence
- The Advocates’ Society
Mentor for “The Big Mingle” event (2020 and 2021)
Member-at-large of the In-House Counsel Practice Group (2020)
Secretary (Executive) of the In-House Counsel Practice Group (2021) - Canadian Defence Lawyers (CDL)
Member of the In-House Counsel Committee (2020-2021) - Canadian Bar Association
- Ontario Bar Association
- Aliyev v TD General Insurance Company, 2023 CanLII 72660 (ON LAT)
Successful preliminary issue hearing resulting in a ruling that a staged accident does not meet the definition of an “accident” contained in section 3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
- Kha v Security National Insurance Company, 2023 CanLII 84379 (ON LAT)
Successful defence of Applicant’s attempt to relitigate his placement in the Minor Injury Guideline with the Tribunal ruling that the Applicant’s injuries met the definition of a “Minor Injury” as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
- Phan v Security National Insurance Company, 2022 CanLII 93710 (ON LAT)
Successful preliminary issue decision on whether res judicata prevented the Applicant from relitigating the Minor Injury Guideline on the basis of fresh evidence, resulting in dismissal of the Application in its entirety.
- Silver v Intact Insurance, 2022 (unreported)
Successful motion decision concerning the Applicant attempting to add issues to an existing Application. The Tribunal did not allow the Applicant to add the issues.
- El-Shenawy v. Markham Aquatic Club, 2022 HRTO 687 (CanLII)
- Unica Insurance Inc. v Security National Insurance Company, 2022 (unreported)
Successful defence of a priority dispute between insurers initiated by Unica.
- Goncalves v Wawanesa Insurance, 2022 CanLII 6818 (ON LAT)
Successful defence of the Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the previous decision of the Tribunal barring the Applicant from proceeding with a claim for income replacement benefits because she failed to attend an insurer’s examination arranged under s. 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
- Jones v Intact Insurance Company, 2022 (unreported)
Successful motion to extend the deadline for exchanging surveillance evidence, catastrophic impairment reports, and adjourning the hearing.
- Whittle v Campbell et al., 2021 (unreported)
Successful opposed motion to compel attendance at a defence medical examination. Awarded costs thrown away for a failed examination and costs of the motion.
- Polat v TD, 2021 CanLII 35573 (ON LAT)
Successful preliminary issue hearing under section 56 of the SABS on whether the applicant was statute-barred from pursuing her claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits resulting in a dismissal of the application with costs.
- Y.G. v TD, 2020 CanLII 69917 (ON LAT)
Preliminary issue hearing under section 56 of the SABS on whether the applicant was statute-barred from pursuing her claims for medical benefits due to the expiry of the limitation period.
- Security National v Old Republic, 2020 (unreported)
Successful loss transfer arbitration. Arbitrator held that photographs of a heavy vehicle taken after an incident are not prima facie proof of the vehicle’s location on the roadway at the time of the incident for the purposes of the Fault Determination Rules.
- Loye v Bowers, 2020 ONSC 456
After winning at trial, Elisabeth obtained a judgment of over $280,000 in costs and disbursements in favour of her client.
- Loye v Bowers, 2019 ONSC 7280
Successful threshold motion after a five week jury trial with the Court finding that the Plaintiff did not meet the threshold of serious permanent impairment of an important physical mental or psychological function. Action was dismissed with costs.
- Loye v Bowers, 2019 ONSC 7198
Successful motion to strike jury questions. Court struck three heads of damages: future care, housekeeping, and income loss) due to the Plaintiff’s failure to lay the requisite evidentiary foundation.
- Loye v Bowers, 2019 ONSC 7143
Responding to the plaintiff’s motion to re-open his case after he failed to file evidence in support of his claim for damages.
- Loye v Bowers, 2019 ONSC 6651
Contentious pre-trial motion and voir dire brought under s. 22.1 of the Ontario Evidence Act. At issue was whether the Plaintiff’s conviction under the Highway Traffic Act precluded him from re-litigating the essential facts underlying the conviction or whether doing so would constitute an abuse of process.
- Saunders v Monkey See Monkey Do, 2016 HRTO 954
Saunders v Monkey See Monkey Do, 2016 HRTO 1034
Saunders v Monkey See Monkey Do, 2017 HRTO 636
Saunders v Monkey See Monkey Do, 2017 HRTO 1048Successful defence of a human rights application against a daycare facility. After a full hearing on the issues, the Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety. The applicant’s request for reconsideration was denied.
- Elayathamby v State Farm, 2016 ONSC 5395
Responding to a summary judgment motion on behalf of the plaintiff.