Five more insurance firms sued for withholding HST from accident victims
Five more Canadian insurance companies have been served with class action lawsuits — in addition to six others first reported by the Star this month — for withholding medical benefit HST payments from car accident victims in violation of the provincial regulator.
Sparking Change in the Wake of Tragedy – ‘Buckle up for The Broncos’
So, what are the current laws in Canada for this? Well, seatbelt use falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial governments and in most provinces the law states that seatbelts must be worn if they are provided, but of course, most motor coaches are not required to be equipped with belts, so they are not always available to be worn. That will change in 2020.
Law firm seeks to win back HST for accident victims
Stand Up, Speak Out: Auto Insurer Direct Repair Programs
Final grades are in — Canadian bodyshops grade insurers
S. M. T. c R. C., 2018 CanLII 103928 (ON HPARB), <http://canlii.ca/t/hvx42
42. When assessing this aspect of the complaint, the Committee, on the other hand, appeared to find a lack of information in the Applicant’s report as follows:
While it appears that [the Applicant] performed various testing, the assessment report did not appear to specify how [the Applicant] communicated information to [the Respondent] about shoulder range of motion testing even though [the Applicant] indicated that she sought [the Respondent’s] consent to proceed with the testing. The panel considered such information to be pertinent when providing a full picture of [the Respondent’s] abilities. In the panel’s opinion, [the Applicant’s] assessment as it relates to completing adequate physical testing appeared to be weak. The panel was concerned that [the Applicant’s] report did not document how she conducted range of motion and strength testing. …
The Applicant’s conclusions about [the Respondent’s] functioning did not appear to be sufficiently supported by the assessment information contained in her report. The panel noted that in order to complete a thorough assessment and to provide a fully informed opinion about an individual’s abilities, the assessor is obliged to consider and document a client’s functional status and to provide sufficient information to support the assessor’s conclusions.
52. Accordingly, the Board returns the matter to the Committee and requires it to reconsider its decision in light of these reasons and more particularly, in light of the contents of the report of Ms. K. R. dated July 8, 2018. Prior to reconsidering its decision, the Board directs the Committee to first allow the parties the opportunity to make further submissions should they wish to do so.
53. Counsel for the Applicant when making submissions that the Committee’s decision to order a SCERP was unreasonably harsh also referred the Board to Ms. R.’ opinion which contained screenshots from the COTO website. Counsel indicated that as a result of the website posting the Applicant has experienced a significant decline in referrals and a loss of income. Counsel referred the Board to the Applicant’s impact statement dated July 8, 2018.
54. In her report Ms. R. stated that:
Generally speaking, in my opinion, if an occupational therapist appeals an ICRC decision, the College should consider not recording the ICRC decision on the website until the appeal has been heard and resolved; otherwise, it can do irreparable harm to a clinician’s reputation and ability to practice over a significant period of time until resolution.
55. It appears that Counsel for the Applicant takes the position that the summary of the ICRC decision that is posted on the website, as well as the red exclamation mark placed next to the name of the Applicant should not be present “while a matter is still in process before HPARB”.
56. The relevant section of the COTO bylaw is 17. 01 u.
Where, for a complaint filed on or after January 1, 2017 or for a report received on or after January 1, 2017 for which an investigator is appointed under 75 (1) (a) or 75 (1) (b) of the Code, or for any decision made by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee on or after May 30, 2017, in respect of a complaint filed or report received, a panel of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee requires a registrant to complete a specified continuing education or remedial program, as authorized by paragraph 26 (1) 4 of the code,
i. a notation of that fact,
ii. a summary of the specified continuing education or remedial program,
iii. the date of the panel’s decision,
iv. the date that the specified continuing education or remedial program is successfully completed, and
v. if applicable, a notation that the panel’s decision is subject to review and therefore is not yet final, which notation shall be removed once the review and any reconsideration by the Committee is finally disposed of.
57. The Board has reviewed the particulars included on the College’s website including the red exclamation mark that Counsel for the Applicant finds objectionable. The Board notes that the bylaw permits the College to provide: “a summary of the specified continuing education or remedial program” on the public register. In the Board’s view, the summary of the Committee’s decision that appears in the public register regarding the Applicant is within the authority of the College as set out in the relevant bylaw. In addition, the Board is not prepared to find that the use by the College of a red exclamation mark to flag the concerns and/or conditions related to the Applicant in the public register to be beyond the jurisdiction of the College. The Board notes that after the summary of the Committee’s decision that appears on the public register, the College, under the heading Decision Under Appeal makes the following statement: “This decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee is currently under appeal or review and therefore is not yet final.
VI. DECISION
58. Pursuant to section 35(1) of the Code, the Board returns the matter to the Committee and requires it to reconsider its decision to order the Applicant to complete a SCERP as directed and to issue a further decision.
________________________________________
[1] The plaintiff in this personal injury action claims substantial damages from the defendants as the result of a 2009 motor vehicle accident, in respect of which liability has been admitted.
[2] The matter proceeded to a trial by judge and jury, which began with jury selection on October 1, 2018. The trial thereafter continued until October 31, 2018, at which time I felt compelled, albeit with great regret, to declare a mistrial for reasons to follow.
Broader context
[4] Before turning to the specifics of this matter, I think it necessary to emphasize important considerations and concerns that provided the broader context for my decision.
[5] In that regard, I start by emphasizing the vital importance of accurate trial duration estimates to the efficient and effective administration of justice in this province.
Ismail v. Ismail et al., 2018 ONSC 6489 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hvtch
[1] An inflexible, unyielding preoccupation with the Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) is not appropriate. As Sharpe J.A. said in 1196158 Ontario Inc. v. 6274013 Canada Limited, 2012 ONCA 544 (CanLII) at para. 19, “procedural rules are the servants of justice not its master”. That helps explain why the Rules are to be “liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits.”[1]
[2] However, a too casual approach fosters a culture of complacency which delays or extends proceedings to the detriment of the people the system is intended to serve. Expert reports illustrate the point.
[3] The time for delivery of such documents is spelled out in the Rules: the first report at least 90 and any response at least 60 days before the pre-trial conference.[2] The court has jurisdiction to extend the time for compliance at a pre-trial or on motion.[3] It is fair to say that an indulgence is often requested because it is rare that all parties have complied with the time requirements the subrules impose.
[11] The solution starts with a procedural rule that is all too often ignored in this part of Ontario despite years of reminders that were initially gentle and are no longer so. Rule 53.03(2.2) obligates parties to come to an agreement that will ensure expert reports are in hand 90 (in the case of an initial report) or 60 days (in the case of a responding report) before a pre-trial. It provides as follows:
Within 60 days after an action is set down for trial, the parties shall agree to a schedule setting out dates for the service of experts’ reports in order to meet the requirements of subrules (1) and (2), unless the court orders otherwise.