Address: 1143 Lakewood Court N, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4R 3S3
Ken Noble focuses on insurance law, particularly in the Province of Saskatchewan. His practice is concentrated on more serious cases such as catastrophic injury, paraplegia, quadriplegia, fatalities, TMJ cases and economic loss cases. Ken will also act on behalf of parties injured by impaired drivers to recover compensation for non-economic loss. In recent years, Ken has been brought many cases against insurers for failure to act in good faith.
Ken founded the Noble Law Office in 1980 after being a partner in a downtown Regina law firm Koch, Bertram, Scrivens, Noble and Prior.
And in 1984, he began practicing exclusively in the personal injury field.
He concurrently founded the Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association in 1984 when he began running a number of jury trials for people injured in auto accidents. He was the first President of STLA and it has now grown to one of the largest organizations of lawyers in the province with almost 300 members.
Ken’s practice has taken him to all levels of courts in Canada, from the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission to the Court of Queen’s Bench, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.
Ken was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in 2009.
Recently, in 2015, he was the Saskatchewan Trial Lawyer’s appointed representative to the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Review Committee that has made a number of recommendations for changes to the Automobile Accident Insurance Act that are expected to be made in the spring session of the Saskatchewan legislature.
Martindale Hubbell publishes a peer review rating for lawyers on Lawyers.com. Ken’s rating for 2016 was again the in the "Distinguished – Peer Rated for High Professional Achievement" category with a "High Ethical Standing". His client rating was 5.0/5.0.
On May 6, 2016, Ken was given the Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers "Most Outstanding Lawyer Award"
An advocate of the individual, Ken does not represent insurance companies and in fact most of his litigation is against Saskatchewan Government Insurance.
Founding Partner and currently "Of Counsel"
Severe/Catastrophic Injury Cases
Death / Fatalities
Lack of Good Faith/ Bad Faith Cases
Canada Pension Plan Appeals
Graduated University of Regina, Bachelor of Arts 1971
Gradated University of Saskatchewan, Bachelor of Laws 1973
Admitted to the Saskatchewan Bar 1974
Admitted to the Alberta Bar 1996
Member of the Law Society of Saskatchewan 1974 - present
Member of the Law Society of Alberta 1996- present
Founding Member and First President of the Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association 1984
Sustaining Member of the Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association 1984 - present
Member of the Alberta Trial Lawyers Association 1986 - present
Appointed Queen’s Counsel 2009
Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association to the SGI Review Committee for Recommendations to the Automobile Accident Insurance Act 2015
May 2016 Awarded the Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association’s "Most Outstanding Lawyer Award"
President of the Regina Rochdale Sask Party Constituency 2008 – 2015
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Conexus Arts Centre 2011-2014
Director of the Katepwa Beach Golf Course 2006 ongoing
There still remain certain situations in the No Fault world in Saskatchewan when a person can sue for “economic loss” and or “non-economic loss”. However, the situations are quite specific and for the most part, distinct from each other.
Economic loss is considered to be those situations when the claim of the insured exceeds the benefits payable by the provisions of the AAIA. The simplest example is when an insured earns more that the amount of coverage provided for by the Act. Such a person would be able to sue the “at fault” party for any deficiency payable as the maximum insurable coverage under the AAIA. Furthermore, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Acton v. R.M. of Britannia #52 (leave to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed) has said that Section 103 allows for such suits in respect of all benefits under the Act. (However, anticipated amendments to the Act may limit claims for additional rehabilitation benefits).
The procedure is for the injured party to commence an action for economic loss within two years of the collision. You are advised to seek the advice of qualified counsel to bring such an action. This is not an appeal of an SGI “decision”, this is a specific claim for compensation which normally brought in the Court of Queen’s Bench.
These claims can be significant. In the event that the “at fault” driver doesn’t have sufficient coverage, consideration can be given to claiming against the injured party’s own package policy under the “family protection” provisions.
Although Part VIII of the Act eliminates suits for “pain and suffering” and “loss of enjoyment of life”, certain factual situation give rise to a claim for “non-economic” loss which is considered to the same form of compensation.
The factual considerations referred to are where the “at fault” driver was convicted of an alcohol or drug related offence under the Criminal Code. Our Legislature has seen fit to maintain actions against such at fault drivers as a deterrent to “impaired driving”. However, there must be a conviction for the injured party to have the right to sue for non economic loss is these situations. There is a two year time limit from the date of the conviction – not the date of the accident.
Again, you should consult counsel to determine your rights to bring such a claim.