Steven Arie Glowinsky

Founder and Principal Lawyer

Lawyers Toronto

email       facebook   instagram

Biography

“It is a tremendous privilege to guide and support my clients as we navigate, together, through personal tragedies towards making their lives whole again.  Although this work is often challenging, it is extremely gratifying – on a daily basis.  I am honoured to play a pivotal role in advocating for fair and practical solutions for my clients and their families.”

Steven Arie Glowinsky is the Founder and Principal Lawyer of Glowinsky Law, which he launched in September 2020. Prior to his admission to the Ontario Bar in 2010, Steven graduated from the University of Western Ontario in 2004 and from the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Law in 2009. He is currently a member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, for whom he has contributed case summaries and articles of interest to its quarterly The Litigator magazine. Steven has argued cases before the Divisional Court of Ontario, Superior Court of Justice, Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), Small Claims Court, Social Security Tribunal of Ontario, and Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

When not working tirelessly for his clients or spending time with his wife and four children, Steven enjoys running, cycling, golfing, and playing hockey.  He has a keen interest in international politics, has a secret love for sour candy, and is a passionate Blue Jays and Leafs fanatic.

Steven takes tremendous personal gratification in working with a diverse range of personalities, making interpersonal connections, and helping accident victims and their families navigate through a life crisis and litigate insurance claims.  His practice is devoted exclusively and entirely to personal injury litigation on behalf of injury victims, including motor vehicle accident claims, accident benefits claims, falls, and other tort claims and disability-related matters.  He prides himself on being an incessant student of the law; a technical expert in accident benefits legislation; and a strong, but fair, advocate for his clients.  For these reasons, he has a proven track record of attaining favourable results on behalf of his clients.

Education

  • University of Western Ontario (2005), Bachelor of Arts (B.A.)
  • University of Calgary (2009), Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.)

Notable Decisions

  • P.H. vs. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2020 ONLAT 18-010205/AABS
    In this Decision and Order, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) found that the Applicant was involved in an “accident” pursuant to section 3(1) of the Schedule on the basis that the use and operation of a motor vehicle directly caused her injuries when a vehicle struck and detached her back patio, causing her to fall through the resulting space while investigating the collision. Moreover, the LAT accepted that there was an unbroken chain of events between the motor vehicle impact and the Applicant’s fall and found that there was no intervening act breaking the link of causation.
  • Ibrahim v. Aviva Insurance Company, 2020 ONLAT 19-006444/AABS
    In this Amended Motion Order, the Applicant successfully opposed the insurer’s motion to combine his existing Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) Application with a second LAT Application, thereby keeping the written LAT Hearing on track. The LAT dismissed the insurer’s motion on the basis that combining the LAT Applications would not be efficient where the written LAT Hearing was already underway and both parties had already filed materials. This allowed the Applicant’s disputed claims for medical benefits, assessment costs, interest, and an award to proceed without delay.
  • Amoako v. Aviva Ins. Co. of Canada, 2021 ONLAT 20-000377/AABS
    In this Decision, the Applicant successfully overcame the insurer’s technical objection to her catastrophic impairment assessment OCF-18. The Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) found that a non-physician listed in Part 4 of an OCF-18 proposing catastrophic impairment assessments complies with section 45 of the Schedule. The LAT rejected the Respondent’s position that the OCF-18 was non-compliant because it was completed by an occupational therapist.
  • Sparks v. TD General Insurance Company, 2023 ONLAT 23-004181/AABS
    In this Amended Case Conference Report and Order, the Applicant successfully obtained broad production orders in advance of a catastrophic impairment hearing, including the production of any surveillance conducted by the Respondent, whether or not it was to be relied upon. The Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) accepted the Applicant’s position that surveillance was relevant and should be produced for reasons of fairness.
  • Petkovic v. Intact Insurance Company, 2024 ONLAT 23-006854/AABS-PI
    In this Preliminary Issue Hearing Decision and Order, the Applicant successfully opposed the Respondent’s position that the Applicant was statute-barred from advancing a claim disputing the denial of his income replacement benefits (“IRBs”). The Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) found that although the insurer had previously terminated the Applicant’s pre-104-week claim for IRBs, the post-104-week claim for IRBs involved a different entitlement test and was not statute-barred by the earlier denial.
  • Wackowska v. Aviva Insurance Company, 2024 ONLAT 22-009110/AABS
    In this Decision, the Applicant was awarded non-earner benefits and numerous disputed Treatment Plans on the basis of the recognition by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) of her psychological and soft-tissue injuries arising from the subject motor vehicle accident.
  • Asieduaa v. TD General Insurance Company, 2025 ONLAT 24-002324/AABS
    In this Decision, the Applicant was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline on the basis of the recognition by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) of the her pre-existing lupus, fibromyalgia, and chronic pain symptoms, which were exacerbated by the subject motor vehicle accident. The LAT overturned disputed Treatment Plans for a chronic pain assessment and chronic pain program, and awarded the Applicant interest for monies owed. Additionally, the LAT accepted that the Applicant’s claim for funding for a chronic pain assessment and chronic pain program was reasonable and necessary to address her ongoing accident-related impairments.
  • Sparks v. TD General Insurance Company, 2025 ONLAT 23-004181/AABS
    In this Decision, the Applicant was awarded funding for a neuropsychological catastrophic impairment assessment, plus harmonized sales tax (“HST”), on the basis that the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) accepted there was medical evidence raising a question as to whether her neuropsychological impairments arose from the subject motor vehicle accident. Moreover, the LAT recognized that the Applicant was entitled to retain an appropriate expert of her choosing to assess whether she sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 4.
  • Asieduaa v. TD General Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 24-002324/AABS-R
    In this Reconsideration Decision, the Applicant secured additional treatment funding that had been rejected in the original Decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”). The LAT varied its earlier Decision and awarded funding for a disputed Treatment Plan for physiotherapy services, plus interest. The LAT accepted that the physiotherapy plan was reasonable and necessary because it was supported by a clear and timely recommendation from the Applicant’s chronic pain specialist and formed part of a broader treatment plan for her accident-related chronic pain impairments.
  • Grant v. TD General Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 24-009368/AABS
    In this Decision, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) awarded funding for the whole person impairment (“WPI”) component of a catastrophic impairment assessment, plus interest. The LAT accepted that the WPI assessment was reasonable and necessary to properly evaluate whether the Applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 7 of the Schedule. Moreover, the LAT recognized that the WPI assessment was not duplicative of the alreadyapproved criterion 8 assessment, as each assessment involved distinct clinical evaluations.

Support Staff

Blogs

Serving across the Greater Toronto Area, Vaughan, Barrie, Midhurst, Innisfil, Thornton, and the surrounding townships.

Contact Glowinsky Law