Who is Justice David M. Brown?

Justice David M. Brown is an Ontario judge at the Court of Appeal for Ontario with 1281 decisions on record from 2010 to 2026. Key areas include civil litigation - plaintiff, civil litigation - defendant, criminal and quasi-criminal law.

What court does Justice David M. Brown sit in?

Justice David M. Brown has sat at Court of Appeal for Ontario and Superior Court of Justice and Ontario Divisional Court.

What areas of law does Justice David M. Brown specialize in?

Justice David M. Brown's most common areas include Civil Litigation - Plaintiff (551 cases), Civil Litigation - Defendant (536 cases), Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law (339 cases). Justice David M. Brown has handled 1281 cases across 10 practice areas.

How many cases has Justice David M. Brown decided?

Justice David M. Brown has 1281 reported decisions from 2010 to 2026 across 3 courts.

What lawyers frequently appear before Justice David M. Brown?

Top counsel appearing before Justice David M. Brown include Self-represented, Andrew J. Hotke, Mark C. Halfyard.

minicounsel

Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

Civil Litigation - Defendant

Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law

Corporate/Commercial Law

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

Real Estate Law

Family and Matrimonial Law

Administrative Law

Employment and Labour Law

Health Law

David M. Brown

Since 2010

Background

Early Life

David Moseley Brown was born in Montréal, Québec in 1954.

Tenure

1,281decisions since 2010

At a glance

Appointed: 2010
On the bench: 17 yrs
Decisions: 1,281
Courts: OCA, SCJ, ODC

Areas of law

Civil Litigation - Plaintiff551
Civil Litigation - Defendant536
Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law339
Corporate/Commercial Law257

Education
Legal Career at Stikeman Elliott LLP (1983–2006)
Publications as a Lawyer
Teaching

Plus

Unlock 7 more sections of this judge’s background. Start your 7-day free trial.

Start free trial

Before the Bench

Appeared as counsel in 4 cases (1996–2006)

View counsel record

1,281 total

Appeal dismissed; appellant did not meet the proximity requirement for a nervous shock claim.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying her claim for compensation as a victim of a violent crime.

The appellant sought compensation for nervous shock after learning that her daughter had been sexually assaulted by her husband years earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the common law test for nervous shock, which requires the claimant to have seen or heard the event or its immediate aftermath, rather than simply being informed of it later.