When employers can require an IME as part of the duty to accommodate
How Much Car Insurance Do I Really Need? – Accident Benefits
The Application for Accident Benefits after a car accident in Ontario and all of those OCF Claim Forms
Completing the Application for Accident Benefits is the single and most important step in any car accident case.
Without a completed Application for Accident Benefits, your car accident case; both for tort and accident benefits won’t get off the ground.
_____________________________________________
Cage fighter drops car claim as insurer lines up video
An Irish MMA fighter who claims he suffered “severe” personal injury following a car accident has withdrawn from a legal dispute over the damages after an insurer prepared a video proving he wasn’t in an injured condition.
_________________________________________________
Christie Blatchford: Political power couple goes head-to-head with publishers in court
It ought to be perfectly clear who is on the side of the angels here and who isn’t.
In the corner of goodness and light are Warren and Lisa Kinsella, canny political operatives, fighting against a right-wing, barely literate, cartoonish and altogether queasy-making local newsletter called Your Ward News (YWN).
Dennis Browne says in PUB submission that increased deductible a better way to tackle issue
The province’s consumer advocate says he is against a cap being imposed on compensation for minor injuries sustained in automobile accidents in the province because he believes there will be very little change to insurance rates for consumers, and it will impede victims’ rights to access the court system.
______________________________________________
Financial Burdens with Recovery – Part 5
Why This 15-Pound Weighted Blanket Is Part of My Anti-Anxiety Routine
Health and wellness touch each of us differently. This is one person’s story.
“You’ll never believe what happened last night,” I told my husband many years ago. “I went to bed and didn’t wake up until 8 a.m.”
[1] The scales of justice are typically evenly balanced, demonstrating that when the parties enter a courtroom everyone is playing off an even playing field. In this case, the Plaintiff complains of numerous injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on October 11, 2013. Amongst the various injuries that will be in dispute at trial is the suggestion that the Plaintiff has suffered an organic concussive brain injury.
[2] The defence seeks to level the playing field by obtaining a stay of the action until such time as the Plaintiff attends and completes a defence medical examination with a neuropsychologist.
[18] I am hearing this motion in my capacity as the case management judge. While I am dismissing the Defendants’ motion seeking a stay, that does not complete the matter. This case is close to being ready for trial. If this matter proceeds to trial, there is a lingering question as to how the Plaintiff will be able to testify given his present medical condition. If the Plaintiff is going to be called as a witness and thereafter subject to cross-examination, one may question how the Plaintiff can submit himself to what undoubtedly will be a period of examination in-chief and cross-examination that would exceed the time required for a neuropsychological assessment. If the Plaintiff can testify at trial, one can rhetorically question why he cannot attend a neuropsychological assessment.
[19] These are all concerns at this time that in my view need to be addressed before this case proceeds to trial. I am therefore ordering that the Plaintiff, through his counsel, makes arrangements for the relevant treating doctor(s) to provide a report(s) that addresses the following issues:
a) the Plaintiff’s present ability or inability to attend a neuropsychological assessment;
b) address why the Plaintiff cannot attend a neuropsychological assessment;
c) when realistically the Plaintiff may be able to attend a neuropsychological assessment;
d) the Plaintiff’s ability or inability to testify at trial; and
e) address why the Plaintiff can attend a trial and not attend a neuropsychological assessment.
______________________________________________
Brokers need to intensify lobby on auto file: Intact president
A Victim of a Distracted Driver, after the crash that nearly killed her – and a hard time in recovery and no outside support- She did something about it. Listen to how she is helping others in their time of need
Rowan’s Law: Precedent Setting for Concussion Awareness
[2] On October 15, 2014, the plaintiff Slava Kushnir was struck by a car driven by the defendant Jamie Macari as she was walking across an internal access road (the “access road”) at the Kingston Centre. A four week jury trial is scheduled to commence January 7, 2019. Mr. Macari acknowledges that his liability can only be resolved at a trial and did not participate in the motion.[1]
[3] The claim against CP and Arcturus is based on their alleged breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990,O.2 (the “OLA”). They admit, for the purposes of the motion, that both were occupiers of the property on the date of the accident but contend that there is no genuine issue for trial as against them because no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could conclude that they breached the OLA. Alternatively, the claim is so weak that, consonant with the culture shift inaugurated by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), I should grant summary judgment dismissing the action as against them because it would be a fair and just result that will best serve the goals of timeliness, affordability and proportionality.
The law
[19] Sections 3 (1) and (2) of the OLA provide:
“An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.”
“The duty of care provided for in subsection (1) applies whether the dangers caused by the condition of the premises or by an activity carried on on the premises.”
[33] Based on the totality of the evidence, it is a reasonable possibility that a jury could find that the property was unsafe, that its condition caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and that CP and Arcturus breached the OLA in the circumstances.
[34] Having reached this conclusion, I turn to the alternative submission that I have the jurisdiction under Hryniak to grant summary judgment if I believe that it is the most timely, affordable and proportionate manner of proceeding in the circumstances. There is much to be said for the bright line approach of MacLeod, J. in Roy and, in a jury case, to grant summary judgment only if no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find the defendant liable. I would be reluctant to substitute my opinion if I thought that it would be open to a jury to disagree with me.
[35] I do not have to come to a final determination on this issue because, even if I accepted the alternative submission, I think that a trial is the proper forum for a fair and just resolution of this case. The trial is only three months away and it will not be unduly lengthened or complicated if the trial proceeds against all three defendants. I decline to exercise the expanded fact finding powers under Rule 20.04 because that would inevitably result in an adjournment of the trial which, given the date of the accident and the age of the plaintiff, would not be appropriate.