It is a point of pride for him that his clients are treated fairly, and he has shown his willingness to go the extra mile for his clients. He has argued cases before the Ontario Superior Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada. He’s also argued cases before many different tribunals including the Human Rights Tribunal, and the Ontario Labour Relations Board. His precedent-setting decisions have benefited not only his own clients but victims throughout the Province.
Steve regularly chairs and speaks at legal education conferences for the Ontario Lawyers Association, the Ontario Bar Association, and others. He has spoken at conferences throughout Ontario and across Canada.
Steve has been recognized by his Peers in the Lexpert Directory of Legal Experts and is a past President of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association.
- Tomec v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2019
- Steve Rastin successfully intervened on behalf of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association in this Ontario Court of Appeal case where the principle that Insurance Litigation is consumer protection litigation was affirmed by the Court which held that limitation periods in accident benefits cases were not “hard limitation periods” but were subject to the discoverability principle.
- Pratt v. Tay Township Public Library Board, 2015
- Dispute involving alleged human rights violations in the contract of administrative boards and municipalities.
- Younis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2012
- Joint cases that were argued before the Ontario Court of Appeal considering the “60 day rule” for required mediations under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. This was a leading case that prompted significant improvements to the SABS dispute resolution process.
- McIlravey v. Vincent Salon and Spa, 2009
- Dispute involving alleged human rights violations in the work place.
- Ms. G v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2008
- This is a matter where Mr. G and Pilot insurance went to hearing, appeal or Judicial Review on 9 separate occasions. This is one of the earliest, and most important, cases on catastrophic impairment and the scope of medical/ rehabilitation benefits in Ontario Auto Insurance Law. The case is the first F.S.C.O. decision that held Desbiens was good law and that physical and psychological impairments could properly be “stacked” for the purpose of determining catastrophic impairment. It is also the case that held that nanny services could properly be characterized as medical/rehabilitation benefits (and not just care gives benefits) in the proper circumstance.
- McGowan v. Rainmaker Estates Inc., 2008
- Property dispute / commercial case that was argued Justice Thompson for 19 days dealing with questions relating to adverse possession, the proper use of surveys and surveyors, real estate law, an the Registry Act.
- Tolnai v. Downey, 2003
- Municipal conflict of interest application where we acted for an Orillia councilor whom a ratepayer sought to have removed form office for voting to allow signs for a local charity action to be given an exemption from local sign bylaws. This is a leading case in Ontario conflict of interest law in municipal context.
- Smith v. Co-Operations General Insurance Co., 2002
- A seminal case in Insurance Law that was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada. This is the root case that established that Insurance Legislation in Canada is consumer protection legislation and, when dealing with any ambiguity, it is to be given a broad and purposeful interpretation in favour of the consumer.
- Waterworth v. Freeman, 2001
- Serious, catastrophic head injury case involving complex issues of liability, causation and damages, as well as a Mary Carter Agreement. Case was argued at trial and at the Ontario Court of Appeal resulting in a multi-million dollar award for the Plaintiff.