Author Archives: Admin4

http://canlii.ca/t/grxqh

[1]          This motion is brought by the defendants pursuant to section 105 of Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43 and Rule 33 of theRules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194. The defendants seek an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a defence orthopedic examination with Dr. Terry Axelrod. The plaintiff is opposed.

[11]      The defendants argued that in the summer of 2015 they received information regarding a subsequent motor vehicle accident involving the plaintiff that took place in September 2011. The defendants submitted that this new information formed a basis for a second physical examination of the plaintiff by the defendants’ proposed orthopedic expert. I do not agree. Dr. Berbrayer was aware of this second accident when he prepared his addendum report and nevertheless concluded that his original opinion remained unaltered. Dr. Berbrayer did not state that he required a further physical examination of the plaintiff in view of this new information. The defendants have not filed any evidence on this motion from any other physician indicating a second physical examination is necessary. The only evidence filed by the defendants is from a law clerk employed in the office of the defendants’ lawyers.

http://canlii.ca/t/grxq3

[7]              The plaintiff’s uncontroverted evidence (supported by the pertinent medical documentation) is that she “always understood that with time and proper treatment my injuries would resolve and I would be able to return to my pre-accident activities.” As she put it in her affidavit:

At no time was I told that my injuries and impairments were permanent and would not get better with time and treatment. By August 20, 2010 [just over a year after the accident] I continued to have pain and impairments and therefore retained [my lawyer] … to represent me with respect to the injuries I had sustained in the motor vehicle accident. I relied on [my lawyer] to take whatever steps were necessary to proceed with my claims …

http://canlii.ca/t/grx9q

Summary:  The record at issue in this appeal, created in response to a request by a journalist, sets out the total dollar amounts paid annually to the top 100 OHIP billers, their names and their medical specialties, for the years 2008-2012.  The ministry disclosed the dollar amounts and most of the specialties, but withheld the physicians’ names and some of the specialties under the personal privacy exemption at section 21(1) of the Act.  One of the parties to the appeal also raised the third party information exemption at section 17(1) of the Act.  The appellant claims that the public interest override in section 23 applies.  In this order, the adjudicator finds that: (1) the record does not contain personal information, and as a consequence, section 21(1) does not apply; (2) section 17(1) also does not apply; and (3) there is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the record that would clearly outweigh the purposes of these exemptions if they applied.  The ministry is ordered to disclose the record in its entirety to the appellant.

Most doctors in Canada are members of the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) which, the CMPA states, is a non-for-profit mutual defence association.

http://bonnlaw.ca/2016/06/06/cmpa-not-what-it-appears/?utm_content=bufferd8f44&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The “unfunded liability” is being addressed by denying legitimate injury claims and cutting benefits. This puts a burden on our provincial health care system and dumps injured workers onto municipal welfare rolls and disability pensions.

http://windsorstar.com/opinion/letters/wsib-should-be-replaced-with-new-system

A recent survey conducted by EKOS Research Associates for the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) shows that when it came time to renew their auto insurance, 52 per cent of Ontarians simply paid or took no action, making their policy renewal automatic. An additional 16 per cent couldn’t remember if they had taken any action at their previous renewal.

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/pubs/News-Releases/Pages/2016-05-30-drivers-need.aspx

The variety of insurance companies in Canada is not what it appears to be in the Canadian market. From a consumer perspective there are almost a hundred different insurance companies, but the reality is a bit different:

https://insureye.com/insurance-companies-canada-owns/