• FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

Latest News Articles

November 30, 2018

by Admin2
FAIR letter to FSCO Superintendent Brian Mills re the HST issue
http://www.fairassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FAIR-response-to-Brian-Mills-Nov-30-2018-re-HST-issue.pdf
More info on the class action and the Superintendent’s response to our first letter: http://www.fairassociation.ca/2018/11/accident-victims-denied-millions-in-benefits-by-insurers-lawsuits-allege/
_______________________________________________________

Auto insurers’ bitter costs dispute draws rebuke from judge

A bitter cost dispute between two auto insurers over an abandoned court action has led to a rebuke from a judge, who ordered Wawanesa to pay Dominion its legal fees. 
 
________________________________________________________

Tomec v Economical Mutual Insurance Company – SABs limitation period is a ‘hard’ one set at two-years – Not subject to Discoverability

In this application, the court is required to grapple with the difficult question of whether a limitation period is a “hard” one, that is, one that bars a claim regardless of whether the claimant is aware of whether he or she has a claim; or whether it may be relieved against where the claimant only becomes aware that he or she has a claim sometime after the limitation period expires. 
 
________________________________________________________

Social Assistance in Ontario: What’s happened and what’s next? Webinar

December 6, 2018 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time – On November 22, 2018, the Ontario government announced a number of changes to Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).

 
_______________________________________________________
 
Cioffi v. Modelevich et al., 2018 ONSC 7084 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hw8rb  
 

[1]       This is a motor vehicle action. The amount in issue is not large but I expect it is important to the defendant insurer. The issue is whether the insurer is required to pay the full cost of a recent mediation or only half of the cost. There is no dispute that s. 258.6(1) of the Insurance Act provides that where a plaintiff requests a mediation, the insurer shall pay the full cost. However, there is also no dispute that as a Toronto action, a mediation is mandatory pursuant to Rule 24.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the costs of the mediator are to be shared equally pursuant to s. 4(2) of O.Reg. 451/98 made under the Administration of Justice Act.

 [2]      The plaintiff argues that there is a conflict in the two statutes and that the Insurance Act prevails by virtue of Rule 1.02, which provides that theRules do not apply if a statute provides for a different procedure.

[6]        The clear intention of the Insurance Act was to allow a plaintiff to request a mediation to be paid for by the insurer in the hope that the action might be resolved. The policy reasons seem clear – I do not think it is meant to apply only where a plaintiff is impecunious as suggested by Mr. Sazant. Clearly the legislature assumed that in these circumstances the insurer is in a better position to absorb the costs and pay for the costs of the mediation.  

 

Comments are closed.