Reductions to accident benefits coming to Ontario this spring will have a “devastating” impact on people who suffer serious injuries in car crashes — leaving taxpayers to fund the difference, Toronto personal injury lawyer Dale Orlando tells AdvocateDaily.
Author Archives: Admin4
Insurance reductions for accident victims to have ‘devastating’ impact
Auto Insurance Fraud & the Still-Untold Story
We watched W5’s show on auto insurance fraud (link below) with great interest. The ORA and its healthcare provider members have always supported anti-fraud measures and we’re pleased to see the few bad apples in the sector being found out. But too many clinicians, and the patients they treat with legitimate injuries, find themselves caught up in a system where most claims for coverage purchased in good faith are treated with unfounded suspicion.
http://www.
ICBC files notice to appeal $400k judgement
The order handed down from the B.C. Supreme Court earlier this month that ICBC compensate a recently-arrived refugee for malicious prosecution to the tune of $400,000 may be toppled if the insurance corporation has its way.
http://www.insurancebusiness.
Ontario Chamber of Commerce is deceiving the public: OPSEU
“There are lies, damned lies, and then there is the Chambers’ use of polling statistics,” said Ontario Public Service Employees Union President Warren (Smokey) Thomas. The Chamber claims that 77 per cent of Ontarians are concerned about the health care system’s sustainability. It also says 80 per cent feel that “Ontario’s health care system will need to undergo broad reform in order to meet the challenges of changing demographics.”
Ontario Liberals’ ‘Basic Income Guarantee’ will replace public services with free market handouts
The idea being promoted by the Liberal government through its “Basic Income Guarantee” is that we should be moving towards a system where the government redistributes wealth by giving individuals money directly.
Auto insurers hope undercover investigation will make fraudsters think twice
The insurance company launched the investigation after one of its clients cancelled an accident claim and ultimately alerted them. He said he was encouraged to file a claim, despite the fact that he hadn’t been injured. He also told them he went to a North York clinic, but was not intending to receive any treatment.
Investigation of claims results in police charges carrier says
An investigation into allegedly fraudulent insurance claims has resulted in fraud charges, Aviva Canada announced over the weekend, against Toronto legal and health professionals.
CANATICS and IBC collaborate in the war against organized insurance crime
“The fraudsters move fast. The insurance industry has to move faster,” said Ben Kosic CEO, CANATICS. CANATICS, the latest tool in the fight against auto insurance fraud, is pleased to announce it is collaborating with Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) to improve the industry’s ability to identify and investigate criminal fraud rings.
http://www.ilstv.com/canatics-
http://www.
Kowbuz v Singh et al, 2016 ONSC 1746 (CanLII)
[26] Through the guise of seeking leave to serve and file a Jury Notice after the close of pleadings, I find Economical is effectively seeking to vary or avoid the consequences of the consent Judgment. While the evidence of alleged inadvertence is questionable and would, on its own, support the dismissal of Economical’s motion, I also find the presence of actual prejudice to Intact if Economical was granted leave to serve and file a Jury Notice. Intact participated in lengthy settlement negotiations which culminated in a consent Judgment. There are very limited grounds upon which a consent Judgment can be set aside. As held by Justice Allen in Davis v. Cooper 2010 ONSC 4320 (CanLII), 2010 ONSC 4320 (S.C.J.), a consent order is a contract that can only be set aside or varied by subsequent consent or upon the grounds of common mistake, misrepresentation, fraud or any other ground which could invalidate a contract.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2016/2016onsc1746/2016onsc1746.html
Nader and State Farm Arbitration, 2016-03-07, Reg 403/96. Final Decision FSCO 4831.
In addition to the way State Farm handled new medical documentation, Mr. Nader also took issue with the way State Farm handled the termination of his benefits, and how it dealt with the follow-up information that he had not returned to work. In this respect, I agree that State Farm acted unreasonably, and Mr. Nader is entitled to a special award.
Dr. Armitage’s opinion that Mr. Nader could return to work was premised on the availability of a graduated return to work program, and the provision of active rehabilitation and other supports as may be reasonably required to facilitate the attempt. However, neither Dr. Armitage nor State Farm knew whether graduated work was available, and the OCF-9 provided no guidance or direction to Mr. Nader with respect to what was expected of him in terms of investigating, arranging or participating in a graduated work return. More importantly, when advised that Mr. Nader had not returned to work, State Farm took no steps to ascertain the reasons for his non-return to work, help determine the availability of graduated work, and either help facilitate a graduated return to work (if available) or proceed with a vocational assessment to explore other employment options, including possible upgrading. Instead, State Farm simply maintained its denial. [33] In these ways, State Farm acted unreasonably, and its withholding of income replacement benefits from this point became subject to a special award.
The leading case on the proper approach to the calculation of special awards is Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Persofsky.[34] The calculation begins by first determining the amount of the benefits unreasonably withheld, plus applicable interest. The maximum permissible special award can then be determined by “adding the additional interest component in s. 282(10) two per cent per month, compounded monthly. To be clear, this calculation includes interest on the unpaid SABS interest. The maximum special award is 50 per cent of this total.” With at least an approximation of the maximum amount in mind, a lump sum is to be awarded, guided by principles of rationality and proportionality.
The principal amount of the income replacement benefits that are subject to the special award are approximately $18,000, exclusive of interest. I do not find it necessary to calculate the maximum permissible special award with any degree of precision. It is safe to say that, with interest (and special award interest on all amounts), the maximum award would be substantially higher than the more modest amount of $5,000.00 that I find appropriate to award in this case.