Selected Case Profiles

Tim successfully represented former Buffalo Sabres Captain, Jack Eichel (now playing with the Vegas Golden Knights), where the team refused Jack’s right to undergo the surgery of his choice, namely, an Artificial Disc Replacement (ADR) rather than a permanent neck fusion as demanded by the Sabres, a procedure which would have seriously compromised his hockey career. Tim, while working with Dr. Mark Lindsay, put together a team of the top neurosurgeons in North America to repudiate the untenable position advanced by the Sabres’ medical personnel. Serious issues arose over the interpretation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and the right of NHL players to control the course of their own medical treatments. Ultimately, just before the deadline for a news conference which included medical experts, to announce the launching of a lawsuit, Jack was traded to the Las Vegas Knights which approved the ADR surgery successfully performed by Dr. Chad Prusmack of Colorado. This case has raised a vitally important question for NHL players, namely, the right to make deeply personal decisions concerning their own bodies and medical treatment and care. ADR is now the norm in the NHL.

Tim successfully represented former Colorado Avalanche forward, Steve Moore against Todd Bertuzzi and the Vancouver Canucks as a result of the career-ending injuries he sustained after being sucker-punched from behind by Bertuzzi, which rendered Moore unconscious with a broken neck and a closed-head injury. While unconscious, Moore was then slammed head-first into the ice, resulting in further aggravation of his head and neck injuries. One of the significant impacts of this litigation was the act of holding ownership, general managers and coaches accountable for their actions and preventing them from placing most, if not all of the blame on the player in question, effectively putting the player “under the bus”. As a result, gratuitous violence in professional hockey has been significantly reduced. Tim was greatly assisted by Ron Slaght and Tom Curry who joined Tim as trial counsel.

Tim successfully represented former NHL superstar Bobby Hull on a variety of legal matters, including a multi-million-dollar libel action.

Tim represented Dallas Stars centerman Tyler Seguin in a variety of legal matters.

Tim successfully represented international track and field superstar Carl Lewis in a libel action against the German magazine, Stern, as well as other defendants. He also represented Carl Lewis at the Commission of Inquiry into the Use of Drugs and Banned Practices Intended to Increase Athletic Performance (The Dubin Inquiry). Carl won 9 Olympic gold medals, 1 Olympic silver medal, 10 World Championships, including 8 gold, setting world records in the 100 metre, the 4 x 100 and the 4 x 200.

Tim was the first lawyer contacted by representatives of Ben Johnson following his positive drug test at the Olympic Games held in Seoul, Korea, in September 1988 which led to The Dubin Inquiry. After approximately four days of consultation, Mr. Danson declined the retainer.

Tim successfully represented riding superstar Eric Lamaze, a member of the Canadian Olympic Equestrian Team who tested positive for a banned substance just prior to the Olympic Games held in Atlanta, Georgia U.S.A. and again just prior to the Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia. Mr. Lamaze is one of the most accomplished equestrian riders in the world and has demonstrated incredible strength of character in overcoming childhood trauma, growing up in extremely deprived and impoverished circumstances. When Mr. Lamaze fell on hard times, he was effectively abandoned by everyone except by his lawyer, Tim Danson who believed in Eric. Mr. Danson was successful in having Mr. Lamaze reinstated on both occasions following his Category II Reinstatement Hearing presided over by Professor Edward Ratushny, Q.C. Mr. Lamaze proudly represented Canada at the 2008 Beijing Olympics where he won an individual gold medal and a team silver medal. Mr. Lamaze has been ranked the number one equestrian rider in the world for many years during his career.

Steve is a Swiss Olympic-level equestrian show jumper. He is a gold and bronze Olympic medalist and has consistently been ranked one of the best riders in the world. Mr. Danson successfully represented Steve in the context of a particular natural ingredient discovered to be growing in a farmer’s field which had unwittingly been put into the horse feed by a local farmer at an international competition.

Mr. Danson represented Nikki Walker, a member of the Canadian Equestrian Show Jumping Team, who tested positive at the 2019 Pan American Games in Lima, Peru for cocaine metabolites. After careful investigation by Ms. Walker’s legal team and experts, the source of the cocaine was identified as coca tea, legally available in Peru and served at the buffet table of the hotel the Canadian and other national teams were staying. After a hard-fought legal battle, the three-member panel of Court of Arbitration for Sport exonerated and vindicated Nikki personally.

Tim was counsel for Canadian Paralympian Jeff Adams in response to doping allegations. He successfully argued the case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport where Mr. Adams was completely vindicated. This enabled Mr. Adams to represent Canada at the 2008 Paralympics in Beijing, China. The case also addressed pressing issues of sport law, including whether doping infractions are strict liability offences or absolute liability offences and whether Canadian athletes can use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a defence to doping prosecutions.

Tim represented Russian tennis player, Larisa Neiland who at the time was one of the top women’s double tennis players in the world in a hearing before the International Tennis Federation in London, England. That case went before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the legal division established by the International Olympic Committee in Switzerland. Ms. Neiland tested positive for caffeine at the Australian opening in 1999.

He represented the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy at the trial of Paul Bernardo who was charged with first degree murder, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, unlawful confinement and committing an indignity to a dead human body by dismemberment. The families were successful in preventing the media from gaining access to the videotapes depicting the sexual assaults upon Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, which were introduced into evidence at the Bernardo trial. The families were also successful in having the television monitors in the courtroom turned away from the public gallery when the videotapes were played for the jury. Mr. Danson continues to represent the families and the Estates of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy in law reform matters to ensure that no judge in similar circumstances can exercise his or her discretion in favour of public access to child and coerced pornography. He has represented the families (pro bono) at all of Bernardo’s parole hearings (see testimonial from Doug and Donna French and Debbie and Dan Mahaffy).

Mr. Danson continued to represent the families during the prosecution of author Stephen Williams and Mr. Bernardo’s first lawyer, Ken Murray and other related proceedings, where access to sensitive material was in issue.

Mr. Danson represented the families in their efforts to detain Karla Homolka in prison until her warrant expiry date (last day of sentence), thereby denying her parole at her mandatory parole release date (that is, at the two-thirds point of her sentence). Mr. Danson was instrumental in having the Bernardo videotapes, autopsy, and crime scene photographs, as well as other sensitive materials destroyed on December 20, 2001. Mr. Danson was tremendously assisted by his co-counsel, Professor Kathleen Mahoney of the Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, and his expert witness, Professor Catherine MacKinnon, Professor of Law, University of Michigan.

Mr. Danson represented the Estates of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy and their respective families, and Jane Doe in their efforts to persuade the government to bring an application pursuant to section 810.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada, to have imposed on Karla Homolka conditions upon her release from prison in the hope that they would diminish the serious threat that her release posed to public safety. Ms. Homolka argued that she was the victim of battered woman syndrome and represented no threat to public safety. Mr. Danson’s argument exposed the fallacy of Homolka’s reliance on the battered woman syndrome.

Mr. Danson represented the Canadian Police Association and two of Canada’s largest victims’ groups, CAVEAT and Victims of Violence, in response to an action brought by Denis LePage, an individual in confinement under the custodial authority of the Criminal Code of Canada after being found not guilty by reason of “insanity” (not criminally responsible), on a number of serious criminal charges. This was a very complicated case involving numerous constitutional issues including Mr. LePage’s unsuccessful attempt at a judicial proclamation of the unproclaimed capping provisions of the Criminal Code. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada in June 1998 along with Winko v. Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute of British Columbia et al, with a favourable ruling rendered by the court on June 17, 1999 (LePage (1999) 135 CCC (31) 205 SCC; Winko (1999) 135 CCC (3d) 129). The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that capping was unnecessary to maintain the constitutional validity of the impugned legislative regime. Apart from being successful in the Supreme Court of Canada, this case was likely the first case in Canada not involving sexual assault records, where intervener status was granted to third party interests in a criminal proceeding at the trial level, with the right of full participation, calling witnesses, full cross-examination and making fulsome legal submissions.

Mr. Danson represented the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and CAVEAT before the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Sharpe [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, which dealt with the constitutional validity of the child pornography provisions of the Criminal Code. On January 26, 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal and upheld the constitutional validity of the impugned section. The CPA, CACP and CAVEAT presented critical argument and evidence to ensure that the Court did not draw a legal distinction between child pornography that used real children in its creation and child pornography that took the form of written materials, sketches or drawings. Further, the CPA, CACP and CAVEAT presented critical evidence on how child pornography devalues, degrades and marginalizes children as a class by portraying children as objects for the sexual exploitation and entertainment of adults, thereby violating the quintessential core value of equality rights protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Danson represented the Toronto Police Association, the Baylis family (whose son Todd, a police officer, was murdered in the line of duty on June 16, 1994), and Todd Baylis’ partner and friend, Mike Leone, who survived an attempted murder on his life during the same confrontation that led to Todd Baylis’ murder by Clinton Gayle, and the Leimonis family (whose daughter Georgina was murdered in the Toronto restaurant, Just Desserts, on April 5, 1994) in two lawsuits against the Government of Canada and the Department of Immigration for negligence in failing to deport the accused, who were under deportation orders as a result of their violent criminal activities in Canada. The Baylis/Leone et al case settled just months prior to the commencement of the trial. The terms of the settlement only permit the plaintiffs to confirm that “The claim has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Baylis and Leone families and the terms are confidential” (see testimonial comments of the Baylis/Leone family).

Mr. Danson continues to represent the Baylis/Leone families and the Toronto Police Association and, to date has successfully responded to Clinton Gayle’s attempts to be released on parole on June 27, 2019, November 5, 2021 and October 29, 2024.

Mr. Danson represented Jim and Anna Stephenson in a negligence action against the Federal and Provincial Governments as well as represented them in a five-month inquest which examined the inner workings of the Canadian correctional/parole and the provincial mental health systems. The Stephenson’s son, Christopher, was abducted from a Brampton mall in June of 1988 by Joseph Fredericks, one of Canada’s most notorious dangerous psychopaths, homosexual pedophiles and sexual sadists. Christopher faced significant indignities and was then murdered by Fredericks. Many of the Stephenson jury recommendations were ultimately implemented. The inquest represented a fundamental turning point for reform of the justice system protecting the public at large. Mr. Danson continues to advocate for the implementation of a dangerous sexual predator law and fervently argues against those who assert that such a law would be unconstitutional. The inquest produced the following outcome: (i) The Ontario Government enacted Christopher’s Law which has resulted in a registry for sexual offenders, (ii) The Federal Government established a national sex offender registry, (iii) The unproclaiming capping provisions of the Criminal Code (ss. 672.4 and 672.5), a matter dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada in LePage and Winko, have been abandoned by the Federal Government, (iv) The Federal Government established a national DNA data bank for offenders, (v) The Federal Government enacted long term offender legislation, (vi) Critical administrative changes have been made allowing for the sharing of information between federal and provincial correctional facilities and mental health agencies. Following the Stephenson Inquest, realizing that the Stephensons did not have the financial means to pay Mr. Danson who had been representing them without being paid, in what is likely the first and only time in Canadian judicial history, the Inquest jury convened a news conference in recognition of Mr. Danson’s hard work, passionate advocacy, and relentless cross-examination and demanded that the Federal government pay his legal fees. The payment of legal fees and a corresponding civil case settled shortly after this unprecedented news conference (see testimonial of Jim and Anna Stephenson).

Mr. Danson represented the family of Joe MacDonald, the Sudbury police officer, who was murdered in the line of duty on October 7, 1993, by individuals with lengthy violent criminal records who were out on parole. Joe left behind a wife and two young children. The action was against the Provincial Parole Board and Joe’s murderers, and resolved in favour of Joe MacDonald’s widow and children.

Mr. Danson represented a number of the victims of the Grandview Training School, who were sexually abused by former residents.

Mr. Danson was counsel to the family of Christine Jessop at the Inquiry into the Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin. This inquiry focused on the conduct of the investigation into Christine Jessop’s death, the conduct of the Centre for Forensic Sciences in relation to the maintenance, security and preservation of forensic evidence, and into the criminal proceedings leading to Guy Paul Morin’s wrongful conviction.

Mr. Danson was counsel for Tammy Crawford, who was sexually assaulted by a David Walker, a dangerous offender who was previously found to be criminally insane (as that term was used at that time) and considered a serious risk to public safety, but nevertheless released from the Whitby Mental Health facility on an unescorted day pass. Ms. Crawford successfully sued the Ontario Government for negligence.

Mr. Danson was counsel for the family of David Rosenzweig, who was murdered on July 14, 2002 by Rasheed Gazi. Investigations were underway concerning the criminal background of the accused; the extent to which he was known to the correctional/parole system, and whether the murder was motivated in whole or in part by anti-semitism. Mr. Danson assisted the Rosenzweig family before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and continues to assist the family at the offender’s parole hearings (see testimonials from the Rosenzweig family).

Mr. Danson was counsel for the family of Holly Jones and assisted them throughout the investigative and prosecution stages of the proceedings leading up to the conviction of Holly’s murderer. Mr. Danson provided direction to the family on Holly’s Law, a law intended to deal with legislative changes to Canada’s child pornography laws, Canada’s DNA Data Bank regime and Canada’s national sexual registry. Holly’s Law will also address the need for a dangerous sexual predator law.

Mr. Danson represents the family of the late Michael Sweet, a Toronto Police Officer murdered in the line of duty on March 14, 1980 by Craig Munro. After serving almost 30 years of his life sentence, Mr. Munro unsuccessfully sought parole on February 26, 2009. He was also unsuccessful in obtaining parole at his hearing on March 16, 2010, March 30, 2011, July 29, 2015, June 27, 2019, April 3, 2020 and November 8, 2022. At 72 years of age and in poor health, Mr. Munro was granted limited day parole for six months at his hearing on May 16, 2024, which was extended another six months on February 4, 2025. Full parole was denied. As counsel for the Sweet family and the Toronto Police Association, Mr. Danson has assisted his clients in making the case against Mr. Munro’s release. Mr. Danson is currently assisting his clients in developing substantive legislative reform with respect to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. Specifically, Mr. Danson is marshalling the case against convicted murderers being allowed to use the federal Privacy Act to assert a privacy interest in their institutional records, thereby preventing public access to the very documents the offenders rely on to support their plea for release on parole (see testimonials from the Sweet family).

Mr. Danson appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Bissonnette 2022 SCC 23 on behalf of the Canadian and Toronto Police Associations, victims of murdered police officers and other victims dealing with the constitutional validity of a provision of the Canadian Criminal Code allowing for trial judges to impose periods of parole ineligibility in blocks of 25 years for each subsequent murder, after serving 25 years in prison for the first murder. Mr. Danson provided the Supreme Court of Canada an “off ramp” through the constitutional technique of “reading-in”. In this case, the court held that “reading-in” was not appropriate. Mr. Danson is representing the Canadian police community and victims in spear heading legislative change in response to the concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bissonnette.

In the case of Her Majesty the Queen v. Howard [1994] 2 S.C.R. 299, Mr. Danson, on behalf of the OFAH, was successful in his legal argument before the Supreme Court of Canada wherein the constitutional validity of the 1923 Williams Treaty was upheld. In this case, the most comprehensive evidence and argument concerning conservation principles and their effect on priority allocation of natural resources were argued before the Court by Mr. Danson.

Mr. Danson represented the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters in the case of Her Majesty The Queen v. Powley (2003) 177 C.C.C. (3d) 193 before the Supreme Court of Canada. The threshold issue in Powley was whether the Métis have the same section 35 Constitutional rights as First Nation peoples. The implications for conservation and Canada’s multi-billion-dollar tourist industry are unprecedented.

Mr. Danson, as counsel to the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters, was involved in the challenge to the decision of the Ontario government cancelling the spring bear hunt, a decision that was made without regard to the social and economic repercussions to the people of central and northern Ontario or on their culture, traditions and heritage. The cancellation had nothing to do with conservation since Ontario enjoys the largest and most sustainable black bear populations in the world. In deciding to cancel the hunt, the government repudiated fundamental principles of conservation, and resource/wildlife management and therefore the principles and legal issues engaged in the case were vitally important to all aspects of hunting and angling and the social/economic fall-out therefrom. The cancellation resulted in not only a serious black bear over-population problem in central and northern Ontario, but also dramatically increased the number of bear cubs that were either orphaned and/or killed, producing precisely the opposite result than the one given to justify the cancellation of the hunt in the first place – an inevitable result when principles of conservation and resource/wildlife management are ignored. Witnesses from Canada’s aboriginal community provided important evidence supporting the OFAH’s case. The cooperation between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities was very important. The case dealt with critically important issues vital to the traditions, culture and heritage of the non-aboriginal hunting and angling community. For conservation reasons, the government was forced to reinstate the spring bear hunt.

Mr. Danson successfully represented the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters in the case of Jackson v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources), [2009] O.J. No. 5166 (C.A.). This case dealt with critical issues of conservation management of the fishing industry on Lake Erie and the legal dynamic of competing interests between Ontario and four U.S. states – Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The case also focused on the interplay between the Convention on Great Lake’s Fisheries, the inter-governmental Lake Erie Committee, the Lake Erie Management Unit, the federal Fisheries Act, the federal Ontario Fishery Regulations, the provincial Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, and the Ontario Fishery Regulations. In this case, the commercial Lake Erie fishing industry was challenging the reduction of fishing quotas, and was unsuccessful in its many legal challenges, including arguments relating to inter-governmental delegation. The court agreed that the claim that the delegation from the federal government to the provincial Ministry was invalid because it constituted a delegation of legislative power rather than administrative power, was misconceived. The court agreed that while the delegation of any kind of power, legislative or administrative, to Parliament or a provincial legislature was not permitted, a delegation of power, even a legislative power, to an official or to a body (other than Parliament or a legislature), was permissible.

Mr. Danson championed the cause of Sunday Shopping throughout the 1980s and early 1990s when Ontario was closed. During this time, any retailer who opened on a Sunday was aggressively prosecuted. Tim represented hundreds of retailers in the Province of Ontario challenging the constitutional validity of the Retail Business Holidays Act between April 1982 and June 1992. Some of his clients included Canada’s largest grocery retailers such as A & P, Dominion, Miracle Food Mart, Loblaws, Oshawa Group. He also represented Dylex, Bi-Way, Hy & Zel’s, Paul Magder, Future Shop, The Kitchen Table and the Committee for Fair Shopping. Through Tim’s stewardship, he was able to shift public opinion considerably in favour of Sunday Shopping, including helping students and senior citizens who needed the income from part-time employment to pay for their education and to supplement their pension income. On June 3, 1992, Sunday Shopping was legalized in Ontario. Mr. Danson argued countless Sunday Shopping cases at the trial level, including a number of appeals before the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, including the seminal case of R. v. Edwards Books & Art Ltd. [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713.

Tim represented Conrad French in an estate matter. Conrad French is in fact the individual from whom author, Ian Fleming developed the character, James Bond.

Tim, along with Morris Manning and Edward Greenspan, represented the Canadian Coalition on the Constitution in its constitutional challenge to the Meech Lake Accord. The Accord collapsed prior to the expiration of litigation.

Tim made a legal presentation to the Parliamentary Committee examining the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord in Ottawa, providing a critical analysis of the Accord and why the Accord played to Canada’s weaknesses rather than its strengths. In doing so, Mr. Danson worked closely with former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in developing and articulating the case against Meech Lake, who subsequently recognized his effort by sending the appreciation letter reproduced under “Testimonials”.

Tim was one of the counsel retained in the challenge to then Prime Minister Mulroney’s decision to stack the Senate for the purpose of implementing the G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax).

Tim is regularly consulted by various levels of government across Canada concerning constitutional and other questions pertaining to government legislations.

Tim was part of the Justice Subcommittee for the Advisory Group on Developmentally Delayed Individuals Manifesting Sexually Inappropriate or Abusive Behaviour.

Tim was invited by the Honourable Herb Gray, then Solicitor General of Canada and the Honourable Allan Rock, then Minister of Justice for Canada, to participate in and to provide expert opinion, at a special forum on Post-Sentence Detention of High-Risk Offenders held at the Conference Centre in Ottawa on May 12 and 13, 1995, subsequently, resulting in significant amendments to the Criminal Code.

Tim was retained by the Canadian Police Association (CPA) to provide a constitutional analysis of Bill C-3, dealing with the establishment of a national DNA Bank. Mr. Danson was actively involved on behalf of the CPA to improve this legislation before it became law, including making submissions before the appropriate legislative committees.

Tim was a participant in the Canadian Department of Justice Workshop on Victims’ Rights in April 2001 where the government brought together experts from across the country to discuss legislative reform in this area.

As counsel for the Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association, Tim litigated the jurisdictional and constitutional validity of Toronto’s then new food inspection program, which in substance was nothing but political window dressing, with the effect of misleading the public, and damaging the commercial viability of the restaurant, hotel, and motel industry.

Tim, as counsel for the chiropractic profession in Canada, represented the Canadian Chiropractic Association and the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College at the Inquest into the death of Lana Dale Lewis. The inquest undertook a detailed review of the relationship, if any, between chiropractic neck adjustment and stroke.

Tim, as counsel to the Toronto Police Association, represented the Association in response to the decision of the Toronto Police Service to implement a regime of mandatory drug testing for police officers. This involved significant discussions concerning various provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Tim, as counsel to the Toronto Police Association, represented the Association in response to the Toronto Police Service and the Toronto Police Service Board’s decision to prosecute police union officials under the Police Services Act for endorsing political candidates. This also involved significant discussions concerning various provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the constitutional right to free speech.

Tim was a keynote speaker at the International Bar Association convention in Berlin, Germany, addressing the issue of freedom of speech versus privacy rights in judicial proceedings in the context of the Bernardo/Homolka criminal prosecutions.