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 is Litigation Counsel called to the Ontario Bar in 2012 and is a Member in good standing with the Law Society of Ontario.

With more than a decade of experience, Mr. Balopoulos has appeared before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the Ontario Court of Justice. His civil litigation practice includes corporate disputes, civil fraud, and plaintiff personal injury matters. He has extensive civil trial experience and regularly conducts Examinations for Discovery and represents clients at mediations.

Mr. Balopoulos has also appeared before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), and has experience with Canada Pension Plan Disability appeals.

He began his career in Plaintiff Personal Injury Law in Hamilton, where he developed strong foundation in litigation and trial advocacy. He appeared as part of the team of counsel involved for the appellat in the Court of Appeal case of Williston v. City of Hamilton.

In addition to his civil litigation practice, Mr. Balopoulos represents clients in criminal proceedings, including trials.

Mr. Balopoulos’ professional memberships include the Ontario Trial Lawyers’ Association (OTLA), Peel Law Association, and Hamilton Law Association.

Personal Injury Lawyer Brampton Mississauga Stathi Balopoulos

Litigation Lawyer

“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.