Offsets are amounts from other sources (sometimes referred to as “collateral benefits”) that will reduce the amount of any long-term disability benefits that you may be entitled to. All long-term disability policies are not the same. Accordingly, the type of offsets that may apply in your case will depend on the specific wording in your disability policy.
http://www.deutschmannlaw.com/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/
The responsibility for mediation and arbitration of auto accident benefits insurance claims disputes has been in the hands of the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) since April 1, bringing changes to the dispute resolution process in Ontario. LAT replaced the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), which had operated its Dispute Resolution Group for the previous 26 years.
Order could be restored at the Ontario Superior Court’s overstretched fee assessment office, thanks to a decision yesterday from the Divisional Court that relieved the court of sole jurisdiction to handle those files.
[1] The Application alleges that the respondents discriminated against the applicant contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).
[2] By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to address whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.
[3] As explained more fully below, I find that the Application must be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success under the Code. Even if I accept all of the facts alleged by the applicant as true, the applicant has not been able to point to any evidence beyond his own suspicions that the respondents treated the applicant in a Code related discriminatory manner.
[18] Dr. Michael Ford was called by the defendant. He was qualified as an expert in orthopedic, spine and trauma surgery with experience in the assessment of chronic pain and chronic pain disorder.
[19] Dr. Ford did an orthopedic assessment of the plaintiff on January 15, 2013. He did not prepare a report until June 16, 2013. The delay in preparing the report was caused by other priorities in Dr. Ford’s practice.
[20] Dr. Ford suggested that the plaintiff had suffered soft tissue injuries as a result of the accident. These types of injuries typically resolve. He would have expected a complete resolution of the injuries over a period of 6 to 12 weeks. He stated that there was no organic explanation for the plaintiff’s continuing complaints which were 5 years post-accident. He suggested that there were no limitations to prevent the plaintiff from returning to her normal activities or work and did not see any relationship between the motor vehicle accident and the plaintiff’s current complaints.