Change For The Better Rally in Brampton
Monday, May 21st, 1:30pm
Drivers say auto insurance in this province is “financially difficult” to afford: poll
Nearly two-thirds of polled drivers in Newfoundland and Labrador have said that auto insurance has become “financially difficult” to pay for, according to a new poll commissioned by Aviva Canada.
______________________________ ______________________________
Insurers’ excessive profits symptom of broken regime
A report showing Ontarians are still overpaying for insurance is evidence of the province’s broken no-fault insurance system, Barrie-area personal injury lawyer Steve Rastin tells AdvocateDaily.com .
______________________________ ______________________________
FSCO clarifies that a Form 1 does not govern actual hourly rates for service providers
A Form 1, or Assessment of Attendant Care Needs, contains three parts/levels of attendant care. For each part/level, a particular hourly rate is assigned which is used to calculate an insured persons monthly attendant care needs. The hourly rate used in the Form 1 is governed by the applicable Superintendent’s Guideline.
______________________________ ______________________________
Physician’s Assessment Methodology Not Accepted – Insured is CAT Impaired – Harb and Allstate
Mr. Adel Harb was injured in a car accident on July 6, 2012 when his car was t-boned on his side of the vehicle. His vehicle was damaged to the point that he and the children had to exit the vehicle from the driver’s side. He took the children to the hospital right away, but didn’t experience any pain until later, as he was worried about his children’s and wife’s injuries. He went to see his doctor three days post-accident.
______________________________ _____________________________
Focusing on the road: Avoiding collisions caused by distracted driving
Distracted driving crashes resulting in personal injury claims are on the increase in Ontario and are preventable.
______________________________ ______________________________
Candidate’s 15-year fight with WSIB after workplace injury part of his decision to run provincially
Taylor is running in Guelph for the None of the Above Party (Ontario), a party which doesn’t believe in whipping votes and which leaves open the door to the possibility of hand-picking cabinet ministers from a number of parties.
[1] This is a motor vehicle personal injury action tried by judge and jury. Liability was very much in issue. Following eight weeks of evidence and closing arguments and my jury charge, the jury began five days of deliberation before returning a verdict. They began their deliberations on a Friday afternoon and returned Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. to continue. They rendered a verdict at the end of the week, late on a Friday afternoon.
[2] On the weekend just after the jury began to deliberate, juror #1, while at his home engaged in some internet legal research. He found a regulation under the Insurance Act, known as the Fault Determination Rules. On Monday morning he discussed this regulation with the other jurors, which resulted in a jury question conveyed in a note to the court that sought direction about the use to be made of the regulation. Juror #1 was questioned about the circumstances leading to his obtaining and sharing this information with other jurors. A corrective charge and admonition was delivered by me the following day, directing the jury that the Regulation was irrelevant, that they were to disabuse their minds of it and were to refrain from any further internet research pertaining to the trial.
[3] The jury’s verdict, delivered late Friday afternoon, found the plaintiff Mr. Patterson 73% contributorily negligent in the collision and the defendant 27% at fault. In the circumstances, the plaintiff seeks an order declaring a mistrial due to the alleged contamination of the jury by this internet information and their alleged failure to abide by the court’s correcting charge. The defendant’s position is that the court’s correcting charge was sufficient to deal with the problem and to ensure a fair trial, and that the jury verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence.