Same Case, Same Law, Opposite Outcomes: Why Lawyers Can’t Promise You a Result

When someone is thinking about bringing a personal injury claim, the questions are often immediate and practical: “What are my chances?” and “How much is my claim worth?” Those are fair questions. If you are living with pain, missing work, attending medical appointments, dealing with insurance adjusters, and trying to plan around an uncertain future, of course you want to know what lies ahead. You want clarity. You want reassurance. And you want someone to tell you, with confidence, how the claim will end.

Our answer is always careful, and it is careful for a reason. We will give you our honest assessment. We will explain the strengths and weaknesses of your case. We will draw on our experience with similar claims, insurers, medical evidence, expert reports, settlement negotiations, and court decisions. What we will not do, and what no lawyer should do, is promise a particular result.

A recent pair of decisions from the Ontario Divisional Court illustrates why. In Dosu v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, two proposed interveners, the York University Staff Association and the Black Legal Action Centre, asked for permission to participate in a judicial review. The motion was to be decided on the written record filed by the parties. By all appearances, the same motion ended up before two different judges at the same time.

Each judge had the same legal materials. Each was considering the same request. Each applied the rules governing whether a non-party should be allowed to participate in the proceeding. And each appears to have decided the motion without knowing that another judge was doing the same thing.

The result is striking. In Dosu v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 6496, one judge refused leave to intervene. The next day, in Dosu v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 6509, another judge granted leave to intervene. Same parties. Same motion. Same record. Same legal framework. Opposite outcomes.

That does not mean either judge acted carelessly. Quite the opposite: the point is that judging often involves the exercise of discretion. Judges must decide what weight to give competing considerations, how broadly or narrowly to frame the issue, and whether a particular contribution will assist the court. Those are judgment calls. Reasonable, thoughtful, experienced judges can look at the same material and come to different conclusions.

For lawyers, that is not a surprising concept. For clients, it can be unsettling. Most people understandably assume that if the facts and the law are the same, the answer should be predictable. Sometimes it is. Often, we can identify the likely range of outcomes and the factors most likely to matter. But litigation is not mathematics. It is a human system, and human systems contain uncertainty.

That uncertainty exists in personal injury claims too. A judge or jury may accept one expert’s opinion over another. They may view a witness as persuasive or unpersuasive. They may assess credibility, causation, future care needs, loss of income, or pain and suffering differently than expected. Even when everyone is acting in good faith, the outcome can turn on how decision-makers understand and weigh the evidence.

That is why we do not guarantee outcomes. A guarantee may sound comforting, but in litigation it would be misleading. What we can promise is different: careful preparation, candid advice, clear communication, and a strategy built around the evidence, the law, and your goals.

This is also why we take settlement seriously. Settlement is not a sign of weakness. In many cases, it is a practical way to manage risk. A negotiated resolution allows you to retain a measure of control over the result, the timing, the cost, and the emotional burden of the process. Once a decision is left entirely to the court, that control is gone.

None of this means that going to court is always the wrong choice. Sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes the other side will not make a fair offer. Sometimes the issues are too important, or the gap between the parties is too large, to resolve without a hearing. But the decision to litigate should be made with eyes open, not on the strength of a promised result no one can honestly give.

The lesson from the Dosu decisions is simple and important: uncertainty is not a flaw in legal advice. It is part of the reality that good legal advice must account for.

With thanks to the Lawyers’ Insurance Association of Nova Scotia (LIANS) for flagging these decisions in a recent risk management note.

If you have questions about your personal injury claim, the strength of your case, or whether settlement makes sense in your circumstances, the lawyers at Carter Simpson are here to help.

Carter Simpson provides this article for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Please consult our firm to discuss your specific circumstances before taking any action based on this content. We disclaim all liability for actions taken based on this material.