[25] Having reviewed the Crown’s authorities, I am not persuaded that they support the sentence being sought here. Some are easily distinguishable from the case at bar. In R. v. Aguas, [2015] O.J. No. 4739 (S.C.J.), the accused, a nurse, was convicted of both voyeurism and sexual assault in relation to two different victims. Both victims were extremely vulnerable, one having just attempted suicide and the other having recently been in a serious caraccident. The fact that there were multiple victims and their extreme vulnerability both played a significant part in the sentencing judge’s decision to impose a 14-month sentence. R. v. Hall, [2010] A.J. No. 586 (C.A.) bears very little factual similarity to this case except that both involved a fondling of the victim’s breasts. In any event, the Court in that case held that a six-month sentence was appropriate. R. v. Im, [2009] O.J. No. 373 (C.A.) involved a physician who rubbed his genitals against a patient while examining her. He received a six-month conditional sentence. The Court of Appeal’s judgment sets out its reasons for refusing leave to appeal a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision dismissing a conviction appeal. There is no discussion with respect to how the sentence was arrived at.
Author Archives: Admin4
Talluto v Marcus, 2016 ONSC 3340 (CanLII)
[24] My conclusion that Dr. Castiglione is not expressing an opinion as a participant expert is further reinforced by the instructing letter to him from the plaintiff’s solicitor dated December 14, 2015 which refers to the pending trial. In the covering letter from plaintiff’s counsel it states:
Would you kindly provide us with a medical legal report providing your opinion as to whether the motor vehicle collision of November 24, 2011 affected Mr. Talluto’s pre-existing back condition, and, if so, in what manner.
[25] The fact that Dr. Castiglione has previously provided a report on his treatment of the plaintiff further supports a conclusion that the opinion he expressed in his report of January 1, 2016 was given for purposes of litigation as opposed to an opinion he had formed at the time of treatment.
[26] The Westerhof decision makes it clear that where an expert proffers an opinion which extends beyond his role as a participant expert he “must comply with Rule 53.03” with respect to that opinion. This is a mandatory obligation. As the plaintiff has not delivered an acknowledgement signed by Dr. Castliglione of his expert’s duty he is not qualified as a Rule 53.03 expert. As he is not a Rule 53.03 compliant expert he is not entitled to give the opinions expressed in his report of January 1, 2016, if the trial proceeds at these sittings.
Changes to Ontario Accident Benefits: The E&O implications for agents and brokers
Both the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario and the Financial Services Commission of Ontario have published bulletins outlining the upcoming changes and the responsibility of insurance intermediaries – both agents and brokers – to advise their clients of the impact of these changes and of the options for increased coverage.
http://www.insblogs.com/auto/
Jurors deciding claims in motor vehicle accident cases need key information
I recently posed the question of why some juries grant low damage awards in motor vehicle personal injury lawsuits.
I hypothesized this may be due to the barrage of insurance industry advertising and lobbying concerning insurance fraud, as well as the use of partisan expert witnesses by the defence.
http://www.torontosun.com/
Surveillance and the importance of disclosure
It’s critical that lawyers follow the rules of disclosure around surveillance in personal injury cases, otherwise they may be prohibited from relying on evidence that will make or break their case, says Helen Hall, personal injury
http://www.advocatedaily.com/
FSCO Statement of Priorities
due by the 31st of May if you are interested
https://www.fsco.
Significant Changes to Ontario Automobile No-Fault Accident Benefits on June 1, 2016
Effective June 1, 2016, these benefits will be “combined” and slashed in half. Where before there was a combined total coverage of two million dollars, for policies purchased or renewed on or after June 1, 2016, there will only one million dollars, for all medical, rehabilitation and attendant care.
Usage Based Auto Insurance is the Future, Canada Needs to Get on Board
Explanatory by its name, Usage-based auto insurance is a type of coverage that literally only charges consumers for how much they use their vehicle. This kind of insurance has even been further refined to charge drivers for insurance by the mile. UBI coverage usually involves drivers installing telematics devices in their vehicles for companies to monitor usage.
‘Everyone will suffer’ from new auto insurance dispute system: Rashid
“Individuals have lost the right to sue and they’re being restricted to a more narrow dispute resolution system that may not work to their benefit,” says Rashid, a partner with Howard Yegendorf & Associates.
Mediating a personal injury case: What to expect if you’re the injured party (Ontario)
Mediation is a popular tool used by lawyers to settle personal injury cases in Ontario. In some jurisdictions (Toronto, Windsor and Ottawa) mediating a personal injury case is mandatory before it can proceed to trial. The Insurance Act also contains provisions requiring mediation for an accident benefit dispute in Ontario. Some Courts have even found that a car insurer’s refusal to participate in a mediation is bad faith claims handling and awarded the Plaintiff damages in this regard.