We hear all the time about how technology is bad for us. Since the introduction of computers. Even people working on App Development have the same issues, we spend more time sitting at a desk than moving around at work. We have created this sedentary lifestyle that is causing havoc in our overall life.
https://www.positivehealthwell
The Timmins-born woman was cycling when she was hit by a car in Toronto. She said her doctors were focused on physical recovery – and so was she.
“I was so convinced that if I just worked harder and tried harder, I would get back to being the way I was, which is kind of the opposite approach of what works. I kept failing at things because I didn’t realize my deficit,” said Jewell in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon
http://www.timminspress.com/20
[12] When an applicant makes an application to the Tribunal, it utilises a great amount of resources and should not be made lightly. Parties should not apply to the Tribunal until their file is ready to proceed. Not only did the applicant abuse the Tribunal’s process, she undermined the accident benefits process by not attending the rescheduled IE. While this did not factor into my determination of costs, the applicant should have known that non-attendance at an IE would bar her from making an application to the Tribunal as this was the same reason she withdrew her application at the first CC. Knowing that, the applicant should not have made her second application. Therefore, the second application was frivolous, vexatious and unreasonable and the respondent is entitled to costs.
[13] Since I have found that the respondent is entitled to costs, I must now determine the quantum. The respondent requested $5,000 and provided a bill of costs. As I mentioned above, the purpose of Rule 19.1 is to deter particular conduct in a proceeding. Given an award of costs is not meant to be an assessment of the actual costs a party has had to incur as a result of defending a claim, an award of $5,000 would be inappropriate in this circumstance.
[14] In bringing the second application which I find to be frivolous, vexatious, and unreasonable, the applicant’s behaviour interfered with the Tribunal’s ability to carry out a fair and efficient process and the respondent suffered prejudice as a result. As a consequence of the applicant’s conduct, the respondent only had to incur extra costs in defending the second application. Given that the issue in dispute in the second application was included in the first application, the respondent had already incurred the bulk of its costs defending the issue in the first application. The greatest expenditure the Respondent incurred in defending the second application would be the time spent attending and preparing for the second Case Conference. This should be nominal given that the Respondent had already defended the same issue.
[15] Taking into account the circumstances including the conduct of the applicant, the prejudice suffered by the respondent and the impact on the Tribunal process, I find that $500 is adequate. Therefore, I award the respondent $500 for the frivolous, vexatious and unreasonable conduct of the applicant.
The Ontario government hired expensive consultants to justify and monitor its auto insurance cost-cutting program. Their work relied heavily on the auto industry’s supplied data and input, freedom of information documents reveal. Ontario Finance made no secret that the industry lobby group, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, whose member companies supplied the data, was their best expert consultant in helping them set policies for car insurance rates and benefits.
An unsuccessful claimant in a civil action will normally be required to pay the costs of the defendant or defendants. Such costs can be very significant. After the event insurance (ATE), also known as legal costs insurance legal insurance, is now available in Canada. It can be purchased by a claimant to offset such costs in both automobile and non-automobile personal injury litigation.
Mr. Bahram Anssari was hurt on December 20, 2013 and sought accident benefits from Wawanesa payable under the Schedule however when the parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation Mr. Anssari applied for arbitration at the FSCO.
https://www.deutschmannlaw.com
If you live in the United States, you can easily find out if your doctor receives payments from drug companies. Ditto if you live in Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Denmark and many other European countries.
But not Canada.
Canadian patients and public-health-care advocates are coming forward with more stories of double-dipping by doctors who work in the public system but also charge some patients extra fees for quicker access to medical care.
As people of faith and justice, it is time to stand in solidarity with those who carry the burden of poverty and call out for a strategy that will improve the lives of millions of people across Canada.
Let’s make sure the Canadian Poverty Reduction Strategy is strong, accountable, and promotes the dignity of all people.