Select Page

Criminal Lawyers. Personal Injury Lawyers. Civil Litigation

About Us

“My passion is to help people who have been seriously injured by the negligence of others. I will work to protect your rights and ensure maximum benefits from the start of your claim.”

Stathi Balopoulos

Stathi Balopoulos, LL.B. (Hons), B.A. (Hons) is Litigation Counsel called to the Ontario Bar in 2012 and is a Member in good standing with the Law Society of Ontario.  With over a decade of experience, Stathi Balopoulos has appeared at various levels of court in Ontario, including the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the Ontario Court of Justice. Mr. Balopoulos has appeared at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the Ontario Court of Justice. Mr. Balopoulos has extensive civil trial experience, and he routinely conducts Discoveries and Mediations on behalf of his civil, corporate and Plaintiff Personal Injury clients. Mr. Balopoulos has experience before the LAT, and the Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) Tribunal for Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability appeals. Prior to being Called to the Ontario Bar, he worked as a Plaintiff Personal Injury Lawyer in Hamilton gaining his experience in trial advocacy. He was involved in the Court of Appeal case of Williston v. City of Hamilton. Mr. Balopoulos is a member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers’ Association (OTLA), Peel Law Association, and Hamilton Law Association. In addition to civil litigation, Mr. Balopoulos is involved with all criminal litigation and trials.

“Successful Cases”

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Williston v. City of Hamilton, operating as Police Services, et al., 2013 115 OR (3d) 144

In an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, the trial judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought an augmented award of costs under s. 258.6(2) of the Insurance Act on the basis that the defendants had refused repeated requests to engage in mediation pursuant to s. 258.6. The trial judge denied that request on the basis that s. 258.6(2) applies only to insurers and the defendants were not insurers either as named defendants or by way of subrogation. The plaintiff appealed.

Held, the appeal should be allowed.



In the News, Articles and Publications

The Lawyer’s Daily – April 1, 2020 by Christopher Gully, Misapprehension of evidence in sex assault case a miscarriage of justice

The Canadian Bar Association, Small & Solo Edition – March 2015, “The Politics of Offices: Where Should You Work?

COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (MARCH 16 – MARCH 20, 2020) | Blaney’s Appeals


Criminal Lawyers.Personal Injury Lawyers.Civil Litigation

The Law Firm You Can Trust


Monday-Friday: 8am – 11pm

Saturday: 11am – 4pm

Sunday: 12am – 4pm

Free Consultations