Scott Venturo LLP - Barristers + Solicitors
   
<< Back to Our Team
 

DAVID M. PICK

Direct:  403.231.8212

E-mail:  d.pick@scottventuro.com

 

EDUCATION:

  • Bachelor of Arts (Honours), Queen's University, 1989
  • Bachelor of Laws, Queen's University, 1992
  • Called to the Alberta Bar: 1993

 

CAREER HIGHLIGHTS:

  • Selected as one of the leading practitioners in Canada in the area of Personal Injury for 2012 by The Canadian Legal LEXPERT Directory
  • Has presented papers and given seminars to insurance adjudicators, claims managers, municipal councils/boards and employers in many different industries

 

PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND:

After completing his articles in 1993 with Code Hunter, Mr. Pick remained there as an associate.  In 1995, he joined the firm of Brownlee LLP and became a partner at that firm in 2001.  He joined Scott Venturo LLP as a partner in January, 2008.

Mr. Pick's practice focuses on insurance claims, bad faith advice and coverage disputes from a defence perspective and employment and labour law from a management perspective.  Mr. Pick has experience in over 16 Queen's Bench trials.  He has appeared in the Court of Queen's Bench and Court of Appeal on the adjudication of a number of insurance-related issues including liability, assessment of damages, long-term disability benefits and entitlements under life insurance policies.  In the area of labour law, he has represented and given counsel to a number of Alberta municipalities and has been involved in collective bargaining sessions, grievance arbitrations and judicial review applications.  He has run trials in the Court of Queen's Bench on wrongful and constructive dismissals and has run hearings before the Human Rights Tribunal, the Municipal Police Review Committee, a Board of Reference and the Hospital Privileges Appeal Board.

 

RECENT COURT DECISIONS:

  • In Benc v. Parker, 2012 ABCA 249, Mr. Pick on behalf of the appellant, appeared before the Court of Appeal in a matter that involves the scheduling of a Certified Examination (“CE”), and specifically what happens if the plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel do not feel that the appointed examiner has made reasonable efforts to schedule the CE within the time allowed under the MIR. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and determined that the Chambers Judge was wrong in saying that within 30 days of his appointment the examiner did not make reasonable efforts to try to schedule the CE. The Court of Appeal also determined that the wording of the MIR required that reasonable efforts had to have been made within the first 30 days after the appointment to schedule the CE. The CE itself need not be held in that initial 30 day period. Most importantly, the Court of Appeal determined that even though the MIR does not specifically allow it, defence counsel can either reschedule a new CE or defence counsel can bring an application for a determination of whether the plaintiff had a “reasonable excuse” to avoid going to the first scheduled CE. If the court subsequently determines that no reasonable excuse existed the plaintiff will be deemed by s. 10(3) to have a minor injury.  If the plaintiff did not have a reasonable excuse defence counsel can start the CE process all over again.

  • Mr. Pick was successfully involved in representing homeowners in a social host liability matter in Wenzel v. Desanti, et al. Mr. Pick's clients (the Grays') 17 year old son had a party in their home in the basement. The Grays stayed home to monitor the party. Alcohol was consumed. Mr. Wenzel was a guest at the party, but Mr. Desanti was not. The guests left the residence and were going home, when a physical altercation between Mr. Wenzel and Mr. Desanti and others occurred on the street near the Grays’ residence. Mr. Desanti, after being involved in the fight, got into his vehicle and either accidently or intentionally hit Mr. Wenzel two times with the vehicle. Mr. Wenzel sued Mr. Desanti for injuries sustained after being struck by the vehicle. Mr. Desanti issued third party proceedings seeking contribution from the Grays on the basis that the Grays would also be liable to compensate Mr. Wenzel as social hosts for the party. The Grays’ application for summary judgment dismissing the third-party notice was granted as the court found no genuine issue for trial. An appeal was dismissed. Wenzel v. Desanti, et al, 2011 ABCA 226. An application by Mr. Desanti for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was also dismissed.

    Tavakoli v. Junghans, 2009 ABQB 756 - chronic pain QB judge alone trial (Mr. Pick was successful and the plaintiff was awarded $0).

  • Tavakoli v. Junghans, 2010 ABCA 391 - appeal of trial judge’s decision (Mr. Pick was successful in getting the appeal dismissed).
  • Callahan v. MacDonald, 2009 ABQB 681 - fraud trial (Mr. Pick acted for the Plaintiff and successfully obtained judgment of over $100,000 plus interest and costs against the defendant who had defrauded his client of her life’s savings).
  • Kent v. Robidoux, et al, 2010 ABQB 479 - application to strike claim for breach of implied undertaking (Mr. Pick successfully applied for dismissal of the claim of slander/conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duties against his client).
  • Olchowy v. Markel Insurance, 2011 ABQB 463 - determination of competing SEF 44 coverages (Mr. Pick was successful in convincing the court that his client’s underinsured endorsement did not apply to the loss at issue).

 

SEMINAR PRESENTATIONS :

 

AFFILIATIONS:

  • Chair, CBA National Health Law Section, 1998-1999
  • Member, Calgary Chamber of Commerce Health Care Committee, 1996-1999
  • Editor, CBA National Health Law Section Newsletter, 1996-1998
  • Chair, CBA Health Law South Alberta Section, 1995-1997
  • Volunteer, Calgary Legal Guidance, 1991-2001
  • Canadian, Alberta and Calgary Bar Association
  • Member, CBA Insurance and Employment Sections

 

TOP ^

<< Back to Our Team

 

 

   
   
Litigation
Commercial
About Scott Venturo
Our Team
Careers