How Rob Konduros Won a 13-Year Personal Injury Case After a Violent Café Assault
A woman was assaulted by a violent patron who’d been allowed by the café owner to remain on the premises and consume alcoholic beverages past the point of inebriation.
For the next thirteen years, this poor woman struggled to get financial help to pay for medical treatment for the injuries she’d suffered because of that attack: one hip requiring replacement, concussion-related cognitive issues, jaw problems, and vision loss in one eye. Was anyone ever going to be held accountable?
Over those many years, represented by a series of lawyers, sometimes forced to represent herself, this woman continued to seek help, only to face denial after denial from the business owner’s powerful insurer.
At long, long last, justice was served, after Ontario personal injury lawyer Rob Konduros helped the client secure a jury verdict against the café and its owner.
How did Rob Konduros win a 13-year personal injury case after a violent café assault? Rob Konduros secured a jury verdict against an Ontario café and its owner after presenting evidence that they failed to protect a patron from a person with a known history of violence. The evidence included a 911 recording, photographs, medical expert opinions, and the suspension of the café’s liquor licence. Aviva insured the defendants and, through its right of subrogation, controlled the defence, but it was not a named defendant.
The case against Lusitania Bakery and Café and its owner
- The defendant:
- Lusitania Bakery and Café in Oakville, which has since closed, and its owner.
- Legal basis for the claim:
- Duties under Ontario occupiers’ liability law
- Duties under liquor licensing laws in Ontario
- The claim:
- The café owner knew the assailant had previously assaulted another patron.
- The café owner failed to take reasonable steps to keep the patrons safe.
- The venue:
- The case went before a six-person civil jury.
Why Aviva’s role in the defence matters
Although the café and its owner were the named defendants, Aviva controlled and funded the defence on their behalf. The injured plaintiff was therefore facing the lawyers, adjusters, experts, and financial resources of an international insurance company, even though Aviva itself was not being sued.
- Aviva is a major insurer with deep resources and a major Canadian presence.
- In March 2026, Aviva publicly reported strong 2025 financial results: its operating profit, it said, had increased by 25% year over year.
- The company said it had achieved its 2026 group financial targets one year early.
- Aviva Canada described its 2025 position as ‘strong.’
- The other side of that coin – a power imbalance
- While a major insurer reports strong financial results, it may also vigorously contest liability and damages on behalf of its insured.
The bigger problem: Insurers saying one thing in public policy debates, another thing describing their financial performance to shareholders.
- In Ontario auto insurance discussions, insurers stress financial pressures and profitability challenges.
- When reporting to their own shareholders, their tone is very different, boasting of strong growth in profits.
The two sides of the divide:
|
The insurer has: |
The injured person has: |
|
Vast resources Lawyers Adjusters Experts |
Pain Medical appointments Bills Fears about the future
|
This very contrast is why legal representation matters so much. Instead of leaving the injured person alone against an insurer’s process, the lawyer puts evidence, legal duties, and accountability in front of the court.
Why the café owner’s knowledge mattered
- A random, sudden assault may be difficult to connect to a business owner’s responsibility; this case was different, because the assailant had a known history at the establishment.
- Rob Konduros presented evidence that the owner knew that the man had previously been violent towards a customer.
- Despite that past violence, the man was allowed into the café and was served alcohol.
* When a business opens its doors to the public, it has responsibilities. Those responsibilities involve much more than keeping floors dry and stairs in good repair. If the business knows that a person on the premises may be dangerous, yet does nothing about it, that fact may become central in a personal injury case.
What factors made the difference in this case
* Because no confidentiality agreement prevents Rob from discussing the outcome, he can explain the evidence and strategy involved.
**Remember, other cases may have other results.
- Rob Konduros was ready to go to trial.
Many cases settle; this one did not. In personal injury litigation, trial readiness changes the pressure in the case. If the insurer believes the injured person will never take the case to trial, that can affect how the claim is handled.
- The 911 recording brought the case back to life.
A 13-year-old event can feel distant to a jury, but the recording helped create immediacy, allowing the jury to hear the urgency of the incident close to the time it happened.
- The jury heard evidence about the alcohol licence suspension.
As a result of the incident, the café’s alcohol licence was suspended. While the defence tried to keep this evidence out, Rob Konduros secured a judicial ruling, allowing it to be admitted.
- Expert evidence helped explain the injuries.
A serious injury case often needs expert evidence, connecting the injuries to the incident, particularly when injuries are complex, long-lasting, or disputed.
- Rob Konduros chose to use evidence rather than calling a risky witness.
While the assailant himself was subpoenaed, the lawyer decided that calling him to testify carried risk. Instead, photographs of the assailant created a strong impression on the jury. (A hostile witness may be unpredictable, and may deny, minimize, confuse, or distract.)
With almost 40 years’ experience dealing with insurers on behalf of injured people, my mission is helping you review what has happened, and explaining your options for a personal injury claim. Your case matters.
For a no-obligation chat, call 519 658 6341
– Rob Konduros, Personal Injury & Long-Term Disability Lawyer
Why going to trial mattered
If your case is difficult, old or disputed, that does not mean it is hopeless.
This plaintiff needed a lawyer who was willing to take the case all the way.
- The evidence — matters.
- The legal strategy — matters
- The willingness to keep going — matters.
What Ontario readers should understand about civil juries
- This case was heard by a six-person civil jury.
- Civil juries are different from criminal juries.
- Canadian civil juries are often conservative in personal injury cases.
- Insurance companies prefer juries, believing that juries often award less than judges do.
What this case teaches injured people in Ontario. Key lessons:
- Do not assume the attacker is the only possible source of responsibility
If a business knew about a danger and failed to respond, the business may be part of the legal analysis.
- Evidence from the day of the incident can matter years later.
911 calls, photos, reports, licence records, medical records, and witness evidence can become important.
- Credibility can shape the case.
The credibility of the plaintiff, defendant, witnesses, and experts can affect how the case is received.
- A long case can still have value.
A delay does not mean there is no case. But timing, limitation periods, evidence preservation, and legal advice matter.
- The right lawyer should explain the path clearly.
People do not want drama. They want a calm explanation of what happened, what evidence exists, and what can be done next.
Can you sue a bar, restaurant, café or property owner after an assault in Ontario?
You may have a claim if the business failed to take reasonable steps to keep you safe. This depends on the facts. Important questions include:
- whether the business knew about the danger
- whether alcohol was involved
- whether staff ignored warning signs
- whether there were prior incidents
- what evidence exists.
What to do if you were injured at a business in Ontario
- Get medical care and follow treatment recommendations.
- While your memory is fresh, write down what happened.
- Keep photos, videos, receipts, names, and witness information.
- Ask whether there was a police report, 911 call, incident report, or security footage.
- Avoid giving detailed statements to an insurer before getting legal advice.
- Speak with a personal injury lawyer before assuming you have no claim.
Why this case was (and is) important
This case matters, it shows what can happen when an injured person does not give up, even after years of delay.
- It matters because a major insurer controlled and funded the defence on behalf of the named defendants.
- It matters because the plaintiff had serious injuries.
- It matters because the defence fought hard.
- It matters because a jury awarded compensation.
Aviva’s public financial results illustrate the scale and resources of the insurer directing the defence on behalf of the café and its owner. For an injured person, that can feel intimidating. But courtrooms exist for a reason. Evidence can be tested. Witnesses can be cross-examined. A jury can hear the story directly.
The result in this case does not guarantee what might happen in another. But it does show why a difficult case deserves to be reviewed carefully before anyone decides it is hopeless.
If you were seriously injured at a bar, restaurant, café, store, or other public place in Ontario, you may be unsure whether anyone besides the attacker can be held responsible. Before dealing with an injury case, particularly one involving an insurer, get clear legal guidance.
FAQs
-
Rob Konduros presented evidence that the café owner knew the attacker had previously been violent toward another patron but still allowed him to remain on the premises and consume alcohol. The jury also heard a 911 recording, medical expert evidence, saw photographs, and received evidence about the suspension of the café’s liquor licence.
