Menu Logo_White

Kelly P. Hart

Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Insurance Defence, Personal Injury Litigation, Professional Liability
Play Button
Play Video

Kelly P. Hart

T 705.223.5464 x246
F 705.223.5465
Called To The Bar: 2007
Kelly P. Hart


Kelly has been practicing with Williams Litigation Lawyers across Eastern and Northern Ontario exclusively in the area of civil litigation since his call to the bar in 2007.

Growing up working long hours on a Manitoba farm taught Kelly the value of hard work and tenacity, traits that mark him now as a lawyer. He has never lost his small-town touch or his ability to relate to people and to the real-life challenges that many of his clients face.

Never one to shy away from a difficult case, Kelly is always looking for creative ways to be an effective advocate. As a skilled negotiator, Kelly has successfully resolved hundreds of cases for both individuals and institutional clients.  As part of a firm of trial lawyers, Kelly is at home in the courtroom and is always prepared to take a matter to trial if the case demands.

Kelly has appeared successfully on jury and judge-alone trials, motions, and appeals at various levels of court including, the Federal Court of Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Ontario Divisional Court, and the CPP Disability Review Tribunal. Kelly regularly volunteers providing free legal advice to self-represented low-income clients through Law Help Ontario’s legal clinic.

His free time is spent enjoying time with his young family and playing hockey, although he admits that seeing the goal light turn red is now quite a rarity.


  • LL.B., University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario (2006)
  • B.A., (Political Science), Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia (2002)

Professional Activities

  • Member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, Canadian Bar Association
  • Speaker, “Best Practices Regarding Surveillance Evidence”, Canadian Defence Lawyers Sept 2017
  • Presenter, 2017 Ottawa Courthouse Series, “Telling a Compelling Story: Closing Arguments”, The Advocates’ Society, March 2017
  • Speaker, "Retainer Agreements", County of Carleton Law Association Annual Civil Litigation Conference, Nov 2011
  • Speaker, “Excelling at Articling,” Ontario Bar Association, 2008-2011
  • Co-authored “The Dirty Property: Pre-Closing Inspections and the Duty to Inspect,” Ontario Bar Association, Magic Words in Real Estate Seminar, March 2007
  • Co-authored “Safely Navigating the Litigation Process” Ontario Municipalities Seminar Series, May 2007
  • Co-Authored, "No contract. No claim?" County of Carleton Law Association, Construction Law CLE Seminar Series, September 2008
  • Volunteer Duty Counsel - LawHelp Ontario / Pro Bono Law Ontario

Selected Cases

Villeneuve v Refill Pros Inc. et al., 2015 ONSC 7815 (CanLII)

Kelly Hart and Ellie Nekiar successfully defended a store owner against allegations of assault, battery, and wrongful imprisonment in a three week trial. The jury found against the Plaintiff and the claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Within the trial, Kelly and Ellie successfully defended a motion in which the Plaintiff sought to exclude all of the Defendants’ surveillance evidence. Justice S. Corthorn ordered that the Defendants were entitled to use significant portions of the surveillance at trial. 

John Doe v. Prescott-Russell Services for Children & Adults, 2009 CanLII 74219 (ONSC)

Kelly Hart represented the Defendant succeeding both on a cross-motion and in dismissing the Plaintiff’s motion.  The Plaintiff sought to use the evidence of his former solicitor alone in support of his motion to proceed with the action under a pseudonym. This affidavit was struck and the court found that even if the affidavit has remained, on the evidence presented, he would not have been able to properly consider the required factors for allowing a case to proceed with a party assuming a pseudonym. 

Christink v. Surgenor Pontiac, (2010) Unreported, ON S.C.J., Div. Ct. No.: 08-DV-1407

Kelly Hart successfully represented the Plaintiff at trial, followed by a dismissal of the Defendant’s appeal to the Divisional Court. The Plaintiff was awarded damages and costs for vandalism losses sustained to his vehicle while under the care and control of the Defendant.

Broesky v. Lüst, 2011 ONSC 167 (CanLII)

Eric Williams and Kelly Hart successfully defended a solicitor at trial involving a scope of retainer dispute. The court confirmed that any duty to a client is limited to the scope of the retainer. A “limited retainer” describes circumstances such as where a solicitor is conducting a real estate transaction without search of title and advises the client that the work being done is less than usual.

This is differentiated from this case where the solicitor was retained for a disability claim and advised the client orally of other potential claims. While the solicitor orally confirmed his non-retainer on the other claims, he did not put this in explicitly in writing. This was not a case of limited retainer, and the failure to send a letter of non-retainer was not a breach of the standard of care. The trial decision was upheld at the Court of Appeal.

Arcand v. Abiwyn Co-Operative, 2010 FC 529 (CanLII)

Kelly Hart successfully represented the non-profit Abiwin Co-Operative in the Federal Court of Canada where it was held that a previous settlement between the Co-Op and one of its members precluded her from raising the same complaint in a new forum.

Thériault et al v. Lanthier, 2010 ONSC 655 (CanLII)

Kelly Hart successfully defended at trial the Township of Champlain against allegations of negligent building inspection stemming from work undertaken 20 years earlier.

Castonguay Construction (2000) Ltd. v. Commonwealth Plywood Co., 2012 ONSC 3487 (CanLII)

Eric Williams and Kelly Hart successfully represented a contractor, Castonguay, in a motion seeking to dismiss Castonguay’s third party claim against its engineer, Zenix, who argued that the claim ought to be precluded on the basis that if Castonguay had obtained the insurance required by way of its contract with the owner (Plaintiff), Zenix would have been a beneficiary of that insurance. 

The Court found that even if Castonguay had obtained the insurance, it was not was not plain or obvious that a claim for contribution or indemnity by Castonguay related to the services of Zenix would be precluded. Zenix was not afforded the benefit of the covenant to insure as it was not party to that agreement nor was it obvious that the parties to the contract intended to extend the benefits of insurance coverage to the losses involved. The motion to dismiss the claim as frivolous or vexatious was denied.

Get In Touch

Contact Form


Stay up to date on case updates, firm news, and our community involvement.
January 1, 2023

Congratulations to Eric Williams

CONGRATULATIONS to Eric Williams for once again being selected by his peers for inclusion in the 17th Edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada 2023. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based

Learn More
Chat Icon_Navy-white-border