The Personal Insurance Co. Privacy Breach Class Action
This proposed breach of privacy class action is brought in Federal Court on behalf of all persons resident in Canada who made insurance claims under their automobile insurance policies with The Personal Insurance Company between January 18, 2012 and February 8, 2018, and who had their credit score information accessed by The Personal or its agents.
http://waddellphillips.ca/clas s-actions/the-personal-privacy -class-action/
What the federal privacy watchdog did after an insurer pried into crash victim’s credit rating
______________________________ ______________________________
Hate crime charge hangs over Ottawa Centre candidate
Twenty-five names and you’re in. Oh, and you can’t work for the government. Aside from that, there’s not much stopping anyone from running for a seat of Queen’s Park, even if you were once stripped of your medical licence and have an upcoming trial for hate crimes.
Dr Sears and Medical Insurance Fraud Investigation
SERVICES THAT THE SECOND OPINION® MEDICAL-LEGAL CONSULTANTS GROUP INC. PROVIDES TO INSURANCE CLAIMS ADJUSTERS AND RISK MANAGERS
http://www.secondopinion.ca/me d_invest.html
______________________________ ______________________________
Claimant makes incorrect proof of loss statement: Error? or “Wilfully false”?
A claimant does not have to intend to deceive an insurance company in order to make a “willfully false statement” on a proof of loss, thus voiding the insurance policy, an Ontario court has ruled.
______________________________ ______________________________
BC Government Passes Discriminatory and Arguably Unconstitutional “Minor” Injury Law
Well the BC Government did it. Despite a written election promise not to strip British Columbians judicial rights to fix the ‘dumpster fire’ at ICBC they did exactly that. With an extra dose of hypocrisy they expressly targeted those suffering collision related psychiatric conditions while celebrating “mental health week”.
Rankin (Rankin’s Garage & Sales) v. J.J., 2018 SCC 19 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hrxsd
[84] In any event, however, I agree with the majority that J. was not required to show that the “characteristics of the particular thief who stole the vehicle or the way in which the injury occurred”[42] were foreseeable in order to establish a duty of care. While the trial judge relied upon the foreseeability of theft by a minor to impose a duty of care, such duties are not conditioned upon the reasonable foreseeability of the particular circumstances which gave rise to the plaintiff’s actual injury (a matter which is properly considered at the remoteness or legal causation stage).[43]Imposition of a duty of care, rather, was conditioned in this case only upon J. showing that physical injury to him was reasonably foreseeable under any circumstances flowing from Rankin’s negligence. And, as I have explained above, it was open on the basis of Rankin’s own testimony to conclude that his negligence in leaving unattended vehicles unlocked with keys inside overnight could have led to reasonably foreseeable physical injury. This evidence is sufficient to support the trial judge’s conclusion that physical injury to J. was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Rankin’s negligence.
III. Conclusion
[85] The trial judge’s finding of reasonably foreseeable physical injury is sufficient to bring the circumstances of this case within a category of relationships which has already been found to support a duty of care. As a matter of law, proximity is thereby established, and it is unnecessary to proceed to the second stage of the Anns/Cooper framework.[44] Given that the parties argued the issue to be decided in this appeal, and in the courts below, as one of duty of care and not of remoteness, a finding on duty of care is dispositive. I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs in this Court to the respondents J. by his litigation guardian, J.A.J., J.A.J and A.J.
Read commentary on the ONCA decision: http://canliiconnects.org/en/ commentaries/43948