• 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

D.F. and Wawanesa Mutual

https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/5483

[]

At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Kerr confirmed that the only issue to be decided was with respect to catastrophic determination. The burden of proof is always on the Applicant to prove its case. It was acknowledged on her behalf by her counsel, that there no basis upon which the Application could be successful.

Without any medical evidence or expert opinion in support her claim that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident, of her case, and upon her counsel’s acknowledgement that, without such evidence,  there appeared to be no basis on which to proceed,  Mr. Kirby moved for a dismissal of the Arbitration. I granted his request and dismissed the arbitration.

[]

The costs of these assessments are prohibitively expensive to a private individual, and without funding by the Insurer, an insured of modest means would, out of necessity, await the results of the Insurer’s assessments before undertaking the cost of its own assessments.

 

Should the Insurer’s assessment find that the Applicant was catastrophically impaired, the additional assessments may not have been necessary. Further, because of the delay in completing the Insurer’s CAT assessments and reports, it is doubtful that the Applicant’s CAT assessments, even if privately funded could have been completed and served upon the Insurer in time for the December hearing. I also note that the Insurer opposed the Applicant’s earlier request to withdraw without costs, and pursue her Application in another venue, which, had the Insurer agreed,  would have avoided the necessity of this hearing.

Comments are closed.