Lexfund is a litigation loan company which loans money for the purpose of assisting claimants in financing their personal injury litigation, including disbursements, medical expenses and living expenses. At some time in the past, the company granted similar loans to five different individuals, each of whom had been involved in a motor vehicle accident. The common thread between these five individuals was that they all retained the law firm of Ferro & Company.
http://www.
The Conference Board of Canada said in the report that depression costs the economy at least $32.3 billion annually, while anxiety costs another $17.3 billion a year.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/
In today’s case (Glover v. Leakey) the Defendant was involved in a crash and injured two passengers. One sued and fault was admitted and ultimately settlement reached. The second sued but fault was denied. In the midst of a jury trial the Plaintiff discovered the inconsistent pleadings and asked for a finding of liability.
https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/4987
As a brief summary, there is no fundamental disagreement between the parties as to the basic facts; namely, that the Applicant submitted a duly completed Application for Determination of Catastrophic Impairment in August, 2015, and despite repeated follow-up correspondence from the Applicant’s counsel, the Insurer failed to respond to the said application not only within the 10 days required period set out in the Schedulefor its response, but for some months afterward. When the Insurer did finally respond and arrange the usual set of medical examinations pertaining to this type of determination, the Applicant refused to attend for the examinations on the basis that the Insurer was too late in setting them up and as a consequence claimed that the Applicant should be deemed to have been found catastrophically impaired. The Applicant further asserted that its Catastrophic Impairment Assessment, prepared by Dr. Harold Becker, should now prevail and be sufficient for the deeming of catastrophic impairment for the Applicant.
The Insurer, for its part, acknowledged the tardiness of its response to the Application and began paying catastrophic-level benefits, where applicable, to the Applicant on an interim basis while attempting to complete the assessment process set out in the Schedule by issuing notices of examination to the Applicant.
This resulted in an impasse which has continued for over a year at this point. The Applicant claims, in its affidavit evidence, that the Applicant has been denied a variety of essential medical services during this intervening period. By contrast the Insurer, in its affidavit, asserts that they have been paying all medical treatment plans, inclusive of applicable interest, during the period in dispute as an indication of its good faith in dealing with the Applicant.
The recent Thompson v. Intact Insurance[1] decision of the License Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) confirmed the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over costs on an issue resolved in advance of the case conference. The Tribunal looked to both theLAT Rules of Practice and Procedure[2] (the “LAT Rules”) and the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act[3] (the “SPPA”) for their authority to award costs.
http://www.millerthomson.com/e
On April 1, 2016, a significant change to auto insurance claim disputes in Ontario went into effect. According to the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, a.k.a. Bill 15, accident benefits disputes will no longer be handled by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) but instead, will now be the responsibility of the Ministry of the Attorney General’s Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).
http://www.personalinjurylawye
“As our research has shown, consumers are increasingly likely to engage with branded social content online, but actually talk about it with their social network offline,” said Keller. “What is important for insurance agents is that they know their audience and what type of content their audience is more likely to engage with, including the base – who are the most influential. They can then effectively tailor their content to what the audience wants.”
In personal injury litigation, generally, the loser of the case pays for a portion of the other side’s legal costs. Loser pays. It is ultimately a Judge’s discretion to order costs or not. And if costs are ordered, the Judge sets the amount at his or her discretion as well. The Judge can order the loser pay a dollar, or a million dollars. It’s entirely up to the Judge. The Judge bases his/her decision on a variety of which are detailed in Rule 57.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure:
http://www.torontoinjurylawyer
Imagine working with a patient for several months or even years before they pay you for your services? It may sound unappealing, however, in cases involving motor vehicle accident victims, many health care professionals are often faced with that very situation.