Derek Mark Sinko

Derek has a broad litigation practice with a focus on commercial disputes, employment law, construction litigation, real property disputes, municipal litigation, and estate litigation.

Derek is an experienced litigator. He has successfully represented clients at all levels of court in Ontario including the Court of Appeal and Divisional Court, at the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as at various tribunals including the Ontario Land Tribunal, the Human Rights Tribunal, and the Labour Relations Board.

Derek provides practical advice focused on achieving the best possible results for his clients.

Derek successfully represented the appellant at the Court of Appeal. The Application Judge found that the farming business referred to in the Will ceased to exist at the time of the testator’s death and that the option therefore failed, such that the farm was to be divided amongst the residuary beneficiaries. The Court of Appeal found the Application Judge committed an extricable error of law in interpreting the Will by failing to apply section 22 of the Succession Law Reform Act, which provides that a will “takes effect as if it had been made immediately before the death of the testator with respect to … the property of the testator.” At the time of the testator’s death, she still owned the land and ran it productively by leasing it. She received income and declared it on her tax return. “On any reading of these facts, the testator was carrying on a farm business [on the subject property] at the time of her death. … There is nothing in the phrase “the farming business carried on by me” that points unambiguously to the business carried on in 1985 over the business carried on in 2019.” The Appellant was entitled to exercise the option to purchase the farm land under the Will.

Derek represented the Applicant at the Human Rights Tribunal in a gender discrimination employment claim. The Applicant had been denied a promotion to a management position. After a 9 day hearing on liability, the Tribunal found that the Respondent discriminated against the Applicant. Prior to the remedy hearing, the parties negotiated a settlement payment of $250,000 to the Applicant for loss of future pension, gross up on future pension loss and lost wages.