Kenneth J. Peacocke, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.

          Barrister & Solicitor

         

          - Lawyer with over 34 years of experience

          - Graduated in 1988 from the University of Western Ontario Law School

          - Graduated with an Honours B.A. (1983) from Carleton University 

          - Admitted to the Ontario Bar in March, 1990

          - Founded law firm in 1990

          - Particular interest and expertise in written advocacy and appellate matters

          - Since 1990 conducted over 3,500 litigation-related assignments for over 200 law firms throughout Ontario

          - Prepared legal submissions and facta for cases in the Supreme Court of Canada, Federal Court (Appeal and Trial Division),

            Ontario Court of Appeal, Divisional Court and Superior Court

          - Argued appeals and motions at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Ontario Divisional Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and

            the Federal Court of Canada

          - Instructor for the Bar Admission Course (Legal Research, Professional responsibility) 1992 – 2005

                                                                  - Written papers regarding written advocacy for LSUC and law association conferences


 

Significant Cases

 

A list of some cases for which I drafted the factum for a successful appeal, application or motion is available on request for interested law firms.  E-mail External link opens in new tab or windowinfo@advocacy-support.ca

 

 

References

 

I am honoured to post the following references from some of my clients who practice civil litigation in small firms or as sole practitioners:

 

"Ken Peacocke's research is second to none.  In a recent attendance before the Divisional Court I was able to rely on both a Factum prepared by Mr. Peacocke as well as extensive research.    The Divisional Court panel relied on the case law submitted, and adopted completely the analysis by Mr. Peacocke.   Ken's research is exhaustive, thorough and detailed.   I have had the good fortune to rely on Ken's research on a variety of matters and have found myself better prepared, more knowledgeable and usually more successful than otherwise would be the case.   The efficiency, competence and timeliness of Ken's research is a tremendous asset for any lawyer."

 

Serge Treherne

Serge Treherne Law Firm

Sudbury, Ontario

 

  

 "My practice is extensively involved in the fields of insurance, labour and commercial litigation.  For many years, I have utilized Ken Peacocke's research services in those areas.  Ken has consistently provided timely, up to date case reporting in addition to incisive relevant commentary and analysis.

His assistance has proved indispensable to the ongoing success of my business."

 

Paul J. Trudell
Seabrook Miller & Trudell
London, Ontario


" I have utilized the excellent services of Ken Peacocke and his staff  for several years. They have provided uniformly competent timely and reasonably priced research with a minimum of direction. Ken is experienced, incisive and friendly. I have no hesitation in recommending his firm to anyone - provided it is not in opposition to me."

 

Tony Keller
Keller, Morrison & Winny LLP
Waterloo, Ontario


A senior litigator wrote the following regarding a  successful appeal in the Court of Appeal for  Ontario:

 

"My client was the defendant in the action, against whom a summary judgment has been issued in an action for payment and possession on account of a mortgage. It is my        understanding that successful appeals against summary judgments are few and far between and are even rarer in mortgage actions. Nevertheless, we proceeded with Mr.      Peacocke's conducting all of the legal research and preparing all of the appeal material, including, in particular, the Factum. Mr. Peacocke's work was so effective that, in spite of the success rate for summary judgment appeals, the court indicated at the outset of the hearing its preliminary view, based on Mr. Peacocke's material, that the matter was not the proper subject of a summary judgment, and indicated to the respondent's counsel that, while he could submit argument, if he wished to do so, it was up to him to decide whether he wished to do so. Therefore, the court proceeded to grant the appeal without hearing the Respondent's submissions. Nor did it hear any submissions by me beyond those included in the Factum. It was Mr. Peacocke's  Factum which won the day."




© Copyright 2024 Kenneth Peacocke Professional Corporation