Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott and the provincial health ministers will be discussing a new federal-provincial health accord in Toronto Tuesday.
The meeting may prove to be a short one if she refuses to raise the annual federal funding escalator back to 6% from 3%.
http://www.torontosun.com/2016
In today’s case (Bingul v. Youngson) the Plaintiff was rear-ended by a dump-truck driven by the Defendant. The parties had different versions of how the collision occurred but the Court noted concerns with the Plaintiff’s credibility and accepted the Defendant’s testimony. The court found that the Plaintiff abruptly moved into the lane of traffic occupied by the Defendant when it was unsafe to do so, namely when he was stopping for an intersection up ahead.
Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) has reported a net loss of $30.9 million for the six months of its fiscal year ending Aug. 31 – a decrease of $47.4 million over the same time period last year.
[1] The Plaintiffs’ former solicitors seek leave to appeal from the $800 cost award made against them, personally, by Barnes, J. on April 14, 2016.
[2] This action arises from a motor vehicle accident. The Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, seeking an order dismissing the action as the Plaintiff, having no motor vehicle insurance, was barred from bringing the action. The motion was originally returnable on January 21, 2016, but adjourned, apparently at the request of the Plaintiffs, on consent of the Defendant, to February 26, 2016.
[13] I am also mindful that the judge at first instance is due a high degree of deference. A costs award is a discretionary order and that the judge of first instance is in the best position to determine the entitlement, scale and quantum of any such award. In Gottareo Properties (Dome Inc.) v. City of Toronto, 1998 CanLII 6184 (ON CA), 1998, CanLII 6184 (ONCA), the Court of Appeal discussed the issue of deference due to a motions judge at para. 48:
Deference is desirable for several reasons: to limit the number and length of appeals, to promote the autonomy and integrity of the trial or motion court proceedings on which substantial resources have been expended, to preserve the confidence of litigants in those proceedings, to recognize the competence of the trial judge or motion judge, and to reduce needless duplication of judicial effort with no corresponding improvement in the quality of justice.
[18] The facts support an award of costs against the Plaintiffs’ former solicitors for the attendance at the February 26 hearing. The Plaintiffs’ former solicitors were still solicitors of record, not having served Andre, J.’s Order on the Plaintiffs. When they obtained the order on the 23rd, they knew of the February 26 date. Had they notified the Defendants and the Plaintiffs of Andre, J.’s order, they could have avoided the February 26 attendance.
A Norfolk County man’s family is baffled after their insurance company deemed his brain injury from a near-fatal motorcycle crash “not catastrophic.”
That injury classification — the criteria for which changed the same day of Adam Bari’s accident — means he is eligible for only a fraction of the compensation they feel will be needed to finance his recovery.
As a former nurse, I have had many occasions to observe patients and their loved ones experience the immediate aftermath of a devastating personal injury resulting from a motor vehicle collision. When the initial shock subsides, the practical questions begin to pour out: Who is going to pay for treatment and rehabilitation not covered by OHIP? What will we do about lost income during a recovery period? If ongoing attendant care or other types of assistance are required, will insurance cover it?
(PRLeap.com) October 14, 2016 – The interesting and somewhat hilarious story of one Toronto resident highlights how auto insurance companies calculate premiums based on location. Sometimes the system is so rigid that it can result in savings or paying a lot more for coverage, through the space of a few blocks. Shop Insurance Canada says this is common practice, but the results can sometimes seem very unfair.
An issue before Canada’s highest court is whether a judge can admit opinion evidence from a drug recognition expert without holding a “Mohan” voir dire, which is a court procedure named after the 1994 Supreme Court of Canada ruling restoring the sexual assault conviction of Chikmaglur Mohan. The court had excluded expert evidence from a defence witness.
A mother provides beer to her underage son. The unlicensed and drunk 16-year-old steals a car from Rankin’s Garage and in the ensuing joyride with his friend, crashes, and leaves his pal with a permanent brain injury.
http://www.torontosun.com/2016