Yes, justice delayed is justice denied.
But a legal system that remains unaffordable is no less unjust.
And if rising costs keep bogging down our courts, we will all pay the price — not just needy people, but middle-class people in need of basic legal help. And everyone who counts on a functioning judicial system.
“It’s not uncommon to be under a time crunch, and a lawyer may be putting pressure on an expert to produce a report, but it’s important for experts to understand the context in which lawyers practice and why they’re asking for things to be done by a certain time,” says Cahill, partner with Will Davidson LLP. “The lawyer has their own compliance requirements they are trying to meet.”
http://www.advocatedaily.com/p
On December 8, 2016, Bill 87: Protecting Patients Act, 2016 was tabled for first reading at Queens Park. Bill 87 proposes numerous amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (RHPA) in particular, to the Health Professions Procedural Code (Schedule 2 to the RHPA). These amendments aim at greater transparency and accountability in the administrative processes of health regulatory colleges. Bill 87 also introduces amendments that strengthen regulatory oversight and support to patients with respect to alleged sexual abuse by regulated health professionals.
http://blg.com/en/News-And-Pub
An Ottawa couple was billed more than $4,000 to have their car towed from the scene of a collision, only to have their vehicle held “hostage” until the matter was finally resolved.
Margaret Roberts was involved in a car crash at Baseline Road and Centrepointe Drive around 3 p.m. Wednesday.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/
If you have a disability that restricts your mobility, you may be eligible for help from the Home and Vehicle Modification Program.
The program provides funding for eligible adults and children to make modifications to their homes and vehicles in order to help them:
[21] I find that the defendant’s inadvertence with respect to the failure to disclose the Facebook materials retrieved constitutes less than ‘full and rigorous compliance’ with the disclosure and production obligations pursuant to both the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Agreement.
[22] I agree with the plaintiff that to proceed in the manner proposed by the defendant would result in prejudice to the plaintiff:
• It would not be sufficient to allow the plaintiff time to review only the Posts prior to resuming her cross-examination. Fairness would require that she be given an opportunity, prior to continuing the cross-examination, to review all of the materials retrieved (hundreds if not more than a thousand pages of documents).
• The interruption required to facilitate that review would be inefficient, disruptive, and have an impact on trial fairness.
• The plaintiff’s expert who has already testified would not have an opportunity to review and/or comment, as may be required, upon the contents of the Posts.
• The plaintiff’s other experts, including participant experts, would not have a reasonable opportunity for review and comment, the latter if necessary, upon the contents of the Posts.
[23] It is simply too late in the litigation process for the defendant to be entitled to rely on the Posts as Schedule “A” documents. Disclosure and production of the documents was required at an earlier stage in the litigation.
While fraud is a major problem for the Ontario and Toronto auto insurance market, sometimes prosecuting false claims is wrong. For example, criminal charges brought against a Toronto man accused of selling fake auto insurance have been dropped.
https://www.shopinsurancecanad
A bill tabled Wednesday in the Ontario legislature, by a backbench Liberal MPP, would limit lawyers’ contingency fees in the province, for personal injury claims, to 15%.
The Ontario Medical Association is upset with the Ontario government, but not over money this time. They are concerned that the government is trying to tighten discipline procedures for misbehaving doctors and other health professionals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/m
In a decision issued on January 30, 2017, a Board of Inquiry of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission concluded that a union insurance fund had discriminated against a disabled claimant when it denied his claim for medical marijuana.