Author Archives: Admin4

Corbett v Odorico, 2016 ONSC 1964 (CanLII)

[14]           An important issue arises in this case as to whether the statutory deductables of $30,000 applicable to general damages when this accident occurred in December of 2009 should apply to this jury verdict. Effective August 1st 2015, the regulations under Ontario’s Insurance Act were amended to provide for an increase in the deductible to $36,540, which was to apply “until December 31, 2015”, with the amount to be revised annually thereafter according to a prescribed formula. The new section 5.1(1) of O. Reg. 461/96 provides as follows:

Deductible Amounts

 

4.1  (1) For the purpose of sub-subparagraph 3 i B of subsection 267.5 (7) of the Act, the prescribed amount is the amount determined in accordance with the following rules:

 

1.      Until December 31, 2015, the prescribed amount is $36,540.

 

2.      On January 1, 2016, the prescribed amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be revised by adjusting the amount by the indexation percentage published under subsection 268.1 (1) of the Act for that year.

 

3.      On January 1 in every year after 2016, the prescribed amount that applied for the previous year shall be revised by adjusting the amount by the indexation percentage published under subsection 268.1 (1) of the Act for the year.  O. Reg. 221/15, s. 2.

[19]           Applying the new statutory deductible of $36,540 to the jury verdict of $33,000 for general damages results in a nil recovery. Similarly, the new statutory deductible for FLA damages (as would the previous deductible), reduces the FLA award for the husband and children to a nil recovery.

Notice

[20]           An issue arises in this case as to whether interest on the damages awarded (agreed to be 1.37%) should run from August 25, 2011, when the Defendant was served with a notice letter or from a later date when the Defendant eventually notified his insurer. I accept that the date of notice to the Defendant governs and interest runs therefrom to the date of the jury verdict (1574 days in this case).

Set-Offs

[21]           The parties have agreed that the jury awards for past housekeeping and for past caregiving must be reduced by the amount of statutory accident benefits received by the Plaintiff for those matters. The deductions have been agreed upon. The net award for past housekeeping is $13,196.63 and interest (running from the notice letter) is $731.82. Similarly, the net award for past caregiving is $8,875 plus interest of $492.16.  As noted, the rate of interest is 1.37%.

[22]           In summary, judgment will issue for the Plaintiff for the sum of $56,294.98 inclusive of interest which is comprised of: past housekeeping $13,927.82; past caregiving $9,367.16; future housekeeping $21,000; and future caregiving $12,000.

http://canlii.ca/t/gnxvz

Older workers want ‘fairness’ – Sudbury union

The union representing 2,500 production and maintenance workers at Vale Ltd. in Sudbury is calling on the Ministry of Labour to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act of 1997, saying it discriminates against older workers.

http://www.thesudburystar.com/2016/03/22/older-workers-want-fairness—sudbury-union

6 Concussion Symptoms And Other Facts About This Head Injury

According to Parachute, a Canadian organization dedicated to preventing injuries, when someone suffers a concussion, “the brain suddenly shifts or shakes inside the skull, and can knock against the skull’s bony surface.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/21/concussion-symptoms_n_9518556.html

Murillo v Turnbull, 2016 ONSC 1906 (CanLII)

[29]           That is not to say that transfer of the file without the assumption of disbursements should necessarily be refused whenever such a retainer agreement is in place.  There are other considerations that could potentially be at play.  Here, the plaintiffs are on public assistance, and do not have the means to pay $11,000 in disbursements.  Denying them their file could well raise access to justice issues.  However, this would only become a concern if it were clear that they simply could not retain competent counsel who were willing to carry their disbursements.  From all of the evidence in this file, I am not persuaded that this is the case.

[30]           I find it telling that Arvai maintains that it was unable to pick up $11,000 in disbursements, yet was apparently prepared to incur legal expenses totalling $25,991.84 to litigate the issue.  This was a shockingly disproportionate waste of legal resources.

[31]           If anyone is entitled to costs, it is Grillo.  The result that was ultimately arrived at is more favourable to Grillo than their offer to settle of February 11, 2016.  However, in my view, parties and counsel should be encouraged to settle their disputes, and should not be discouraged from doing so by the threat of a substantial award of costs being made against them thereafter.  I am disposed to follow the approach of Templeton J. in Talbot, and award no costs to either side on any of the matters before me.

http://canlii.ca/t/gnrph

Clarke v. Faust, 2016 ONCA 223 (CanLII)

[13]      Section 4 of the Act provides: “Unless this Act provides otherwise, a proceeding shall not be commenced in respect of a claim after the second anniversary of the day on which the claim was discovered.” A “claim” is defined to mean “a claim to remedy an injury, loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act or omission”.

[14]      Section 5 sets out the criteria that define the day on which a claim is discovered:

5. (1) A claim is discovered on the earlier of,

(a) the day on which the person with the claim first knew,

(i) that the injury, loss or damage had occurred,

(ii) that the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission,

(iii) that the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is made, and

(iv) that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it; and

(b) the day on which a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the person with the claim first ought to have known of the matters referred to in clause (a).

(2) A person with a claim shall be presumed to have known of the matters referred to in clause (1) (a) on the day the act or omission on which the claim is based took place, unless the contrary is proved.

http://canlii.ca/t/gnxs2

The Impartiality of Expert Witnesses is brought into question by Steve Rastin

In a February 2016 Law Times article, Steve Rastin called for a public inquiry into concerns recently expressed by the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) that some medical-legal experts distort evidence in personal injury claims, on behalf of their insurance company clients.  Mr. Rastin asserts, “The expert should give the same opinion whether he or she is hired by the insurance company or by the claimant.”  When experts bow to pressures to present testimony that is biased towards the insurance company, then seriously injured persons deserving of compensation may be unfairly denied coverage or receive inadequate compensation for their injuries.

http://www.personalinjurylawyerservice.ca/blog?post=expert-witness-bias

PIA Law is pleased to announce the annual Community Healthcare Professional Education Bursary.

The purpose of this bursary is to support and encourage healthcare professionals working within the brain and spinal cord injury fields to continue to pursue professional development in the areas of brain and spinal cord injury rehabilitation.

http://www.pialaw.ca/news-events/community-bursary/

Supreme Court will not hear appeal from Ontario auto claimant whose lawsuit was dismissed due to two-year limitation period

The Supreme Court of Canada announced Thursday it will not hear an appeal from an Ontario auto claimant who unsuccessfully sought a non-earner benefit more than three years after her income replacement benefits were terminated

http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/supreme-court-will-not-hear-appeal-from-ontario-auto-claimant-whose-lawsuit-was-dismissed-due-to-two/1004082723/

Compensation from one, several or all

In Ontario, a party is liable for injuries and resulting damages based on fault. There is however an exception to this rule pursuant to the joint and several liability provision of the Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N. 1. While joint and several liability is applicable in many different areas of law, the focus of this article will remain within the context of tort claims.

http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/articles/2640

Commentary: Why we need a practical approach in the basic-income debate

The idea of a basic income guarantee for all Canadians has again moved to the front burner with the House of Commons Finance Committee and the Ontario government supporting further study and experimentation. This could be an important step forward, but incremental reform towards an income tested guarantee for working age Canadians delivered through the tax system will be the best path forward as opposed to more visionary “big bang” solutions.

http://www.northumberlandview.ca/index.php?module=news&type=user&func=display&sid=40770