Name and Title
Isabelle Eckler
Year of Call

2015 (Ontario)


Isabelle EcklerParties to a dispute must take care when saying sorry for their actions, Toronto litigator Isabelle Eckler tells AdvocateDaily.com.

Although Ontario’s Apology Act prevents expressions of sympathy or regret from being used as evidence of liability in civil actions, Eckler, an associate with Shibley Righton LLP, points out that the Act only applies in certain situations, leaving litigants potentially sorry they ever spoke.

“An apology by or on behalf of someone is inadmissible in a civil proceeding or arbitration as evidence of the person’s fault or liability in connection with the event,” she explains. “But individuals have to be very careful about the context in which they apologize.”

For example, Eckler says an exception written into the law means that apologies elicited during examinations for discovery or in the course of trial testimony are not covered and may expose the individual to a finding of liability.

In addition, the “Apology Act does not affect the admissibility of evidence in a provincial offence or criminal matter,” she says.

This is an excerpt from an article that appeared on AdvocateDaily.com.

Please click here to read the rest of the story.


Isabelle Eckler BIO pictureToronto litigator Isabelle Eckler says a recent Ontario Divisional Court decision serves as a reminder to builders and designers to include limitation provisions in contracts to prevent them from becoming involved in third-party claims in the future.

Eckler, an associate with Shibley Righton LLP, tells AdvocateDaily.com the ruling found that although the Ontario Limitations Act says a defendant has two years from the date they are served with a claim, that deadline can be overruled by a contract.

"The limitations provision that the court was looking at in this case was the contribution and indemnification provision that provides two years for any claim for indemnity," Eckler says. "Because the third party had a contract with the plaintiff which provided for a six-year limitation period after substantial completion, by the time the defendant wanted to add the third party, those six years had gone by."

The case involved a couple who hired an architect in 1993 to design a new home. They signed a contract that provided a six-year limitation period after completion. The court heard the agreement stated that after the expiration of the period, "the client shall have no claim whatsoever against the architect."


This is an excerpt from an article that appeard on AdvocateDaily.com.

Please click here to read the full story.


The case of a driver suing his insurance company for the diminished value of his luxury car following an accident may the first of its kind in Ontario, but it likely won’t be the last, says Toronto litigator Isabelle Eckler.

In the ongoing Renwick v Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 CanLII 44178 (ON SCSM), the court agreed to consider the plaintiff’s claim against his insurance company for damages related to the reduced worth of his Jaguar following a rear-end collision by another vehicle, according to court documents.

The events unfolded in 2014 when the driver’s Jaguar was rear-ended by a commercial truck driver in the course of his employment. The driver’s own insurer paid for the repairs to his vehicle, but refused the charges for diminished value, so he filed an initial small claims suit against Penske and its driver, both were represented by Eckler, an associate with Shibley Righton LLP.

“In our case, we brought a motion to strike based on the Ontario Insurance Act’s no-fault regime that prohibits an insured individual from suing another driver for damages to his or her automobile. We were successful, but the plaintiff continued to pursue the claim against his own insurance company,” she tells AdvocateDaily.com.

Allstate also moved to strike the claim, but the court found that the matter should go to trial where evidence could be presented on whether the insurance policy covered damages from diminished value, Eckler points out.

This article appeard on AdvocateDaily.com,  please click here to read the complete story.


A recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in a commercial real estate litigation may signal better protection for buyers, says Toronto litigator Isabelle Eckler.

In Singh v Trump, 2016 ONCA 747 (CanLII), two Toronto investors sued for damages after their purchase of hotel units in the Trump International Hotel failed to produce the profit margins promised in the developer's marketing material, she tells AdvocateDaily.com.

They brought motions for partial summary judgment against the developer, which were dismissed on the basis that it was “objectively unreasonable,” for the plaintiffs to rely on the developer’s marketing material, but the appeal judge disagreed, points out Eckler, associate with Shibley Righton LLP.

“The developers were marketing the property on the basis that unit owners could take advantage of the hotel’s reservation program, which would allow them to make a profit,” she explains, noting that the case was further complicated by allegations that the developer’s profit estimates violated a breach of the Ontario’s Securities Act (OSC). “It appears that the developers wanted the Ontario Securities Commission to see the hotel units as real estate rather than securities.

This article appeard on AdvocateDaily.com.  Please click here to read the full story.


Toronto litigator Isabelle Eckler says a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding an exclusion clause in a standard form contract took a very practical approach that may lead to fewer disputes in court over contract terminology.

In the matter of Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37, the top court suggested that when it comes to disputes over standard form contracts, the standard of review is correctness rather than reasonableness.

The dispute involved a construction project where an office tower’s windows were scratched by the cleaners who used improper tools and methods in carrying out their work. As a result, the windows had to be replaced at a cost of $2.5 million. The building’s owner and the general contractor claimed the cost of replacing the windows against a builders’ risk insurance policy issued in their favour and covering all contractors involved in the construction. The insurers denied coverage on the basis of an exclusion contained in the policy for the “cost of making good faulty workmanship.”

This article appeared on AdvocateDaily.com.  Please click here for the full story.

More About

Isabelle Eckler is an associate at Shibley Righton, with experience in the firm's professional liability, commercial litigation and construction law practice groups. She articled with the firm in 2014-2015 and was called to the Ontario Bar in 2015. Isabelle has appeared before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and has conducted a trial in Small Claims Court.

Isabelle obtained her law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School, where she made the Dean's Honour List and was awarded the WeirFoulds LLP Prize in Administrative Law. During law school, Isabelle worked as a research assistant and participated in the school's Innocence Project Intensive program.

Prior to law school, Isabelle obtained a Bachelor of Arts (Hons.) degree in Environmental and Urban Studies at the University of Toronto, and a Master's degree in Urban Studies at University College London, in England.  Isabelle speaks fluent French.

Contact Information

T: 416.214.5269
F: 416.214.5469
E: isabelle.eckler@shibleyrighton.com


Osgoode Hall Law School, J.D., 2014

University College London, MSc., 2011

University of Toronto, B.A. (Hons.), 2010