Melissa Jirovec was working as a registered nurse at Cochrane’s Lady Minto Hospital in June 2014 when her fiancé was brought into the emergency department in a barely recognizable state.
“I was the first to identify him,” she recalled. “His head was swollen.”
Once again, Ontario has announced another package of auto insurance reforms.
With a provincial election just months away, the Ontario government recently announced yet another plan to make auto insurance affordable for Ontario drivers. The plan is focused on addressing fraud and providing better access to care.
The announcement by Charles Sousa, Ontario’s minister of finance, along with attorney general Yasir Naqvi, follows several months of consultation with a broad range of stakeholders regarding David Marshall’s report, Fair Benefits Fairly Delivered: A Review of the Auto Insurance System in Ontario, released in April 2017. Marshall’s report contained 35 recommendations to reform the auto insurance system.
https://www.insblogs.com/auto/weve-been-down-this-road-before/8086
With 2017 behind us, it’s a good time to reflect on significant changes to insurance law that occurred over the past year and their effect on the industry going forward.
In one of the year’s most anticipated decisions, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on the application of the rate of pre-judgment interest for general damages claims arising from a motor vehicle accident.
When you apply for insurance, you have a duty to disclose all relevant information and be honest in answering every question. Failing to do so can amount to misrepresentation which may lead the insurer to void the policy or deny you coverage.
https://oatleyvigmond.com/insu
SB was injured in a car accident on April 2, 2008, and sought benefits SABs and applied to the LAT when the disputed benefits were denied. SB has been determined to be catastrophically impaired under s.40 of the Schedule.
So you’re filing a personal injury claim and you want to know if you should negotiate a structured settlement or just go with a lump sum payment.
When weighing out a structured settlement vs. lump sum payment, it’s hard to decide when you’re not really sure what either of them means, or what the benefits are to either option.
[41] I make this finding based on the following:
a. Both parties are able to work and continue with their daily activities. There is a concern that any lingering limitations in these areas are related to either a pre-existing condition or the natural aging process based on the expert evidence given. It was open to the jury to accept this expert evidence and they did so.
b. There were credibility issues at trial regarding both plaintiffs and their experts. It was open to the jury to reject some or all of that evidence and it is clear from the damage awards that they did not accept the evidence of plaintiffs with respect to the nature and severity of the complaints.
c. While the plaintiffs suffered injuries, they have not met the required threshold as there is insufficient proof that those injuries are at the level of being impairments. Further, if I am wrong and the injuries can be classified as impairments, given the evidence that the injuries may have been serious at one point but are now completely healed, are rooted in a pre-existing condition or are the result of the natural aging process, it is impossible for them to meet the third part of the test with respect to being “serious” impairments.
d. I agree with the defence that the Mandel v. Fakhim case cited above must give the court pause. As Myers, J. put it, “I am being invited to find that facts were proven at trial when the jury has already found that those fact were not proven. I cannot do that without undermining the role of the jury as the exclusive finders of fact.” (para 10). Given the low amount of damages awarded in this case, I find the court is put in a similar position here. That is, not only have the plaintiffs failed to satisfy their onus of proof, the matter may well be moot in any event.
Orders
[43] Given all of the above, I make the following orders:
a. Judgment shall be entered. A draft judgment to be directed to me for signing. In the event there is any dispute concerning the wording of the judgment, an appointment may be taken out with me for settlement.
b. The plaintiffs shall pay trial costs fixed at $253,120 inclusive of disbursements and HST.
c. The plaintiffs shall pay all-inclusive costs of $3,500 for the motion heard December 2, 2016.
d. The plaintiffs shall pay all-inclusive costs of $3,500 for the motion heard December 21, 2017.
The calendar has flipped to 2018, and in Ontario, we continue to debate fair auto insurance benefits.
In December, Ontario announced its Fair Auto Insurance Plan. This announcement came after the government’s extensive consultations regarding David Marshall’s report entitled Fair Benefits Fairly Delivered: A Review of the Auto Insurance System in Ontario.
https://www.insblogs.com/auto/
When you apply for insurance, you have a duty to disclose all relevant information and be honest in answering every question. Failing to do so can amount to misrepresentation which may lead the insurer to void the policy or deny you coverage.
https://oatleyvigmond.com/insu