Author Archives: Admin4

Meet the man injured Ontario workers ‘love to hate’

David Marshall will steer the perpetually challenged Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for another two years.

Injured Workers Denounce $400,000 Bonus to WSIB President and CEO

This year saw a number of scandals and explicit attacks against injured workers, with recent changes to policy and practice forcing thousands of injured workers onto social assistance and into poverty. Mr. Marshall has been the main architect of the transformation of the WSIB into an institution that is hostile and contemptuous of people who have been injured or made ill on the job – the very people it is supposed to help.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/injured-workers-denounce-400000-bonus-to-wsib-president-and-ceo-1983906.htm

Is this where we are going?

Insurer’s attempt to short circuit dispute resolution process shut down

Those insurers frustrated by the delay in having an “accident” determination adjudicated under the dispute resolution process should take heed of the recent decision of Mr. Justice Sweeny in Ayr Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. Wright, 2015 ONSC 6219.  Mr. Justice Sweeny was asked to address a pre-emptive Application under Rule 14 for a determination of “accident” based on a three line description contained in the OCF-1.  The insurer refused to attend or participate in a FSCO mediation and unilaterally attempted to seek adjudication of the “accident” issue outside the parameters of the dispute resolution process.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b41db9e9-c35f-4369-89e2-689ba6d0e287

When a Summary Judgment Motion became a full blown 3 day mini trial: Anjum et. al., v. Doe. et. al.: A case study

The balance between access to justice vs. the goals of expediency, affordability and proportionality of the civil justice system were weighed in the case of Anjum et. al. v. Doe et. al. Here, it was ruled that a defendant insurer would be permitted to bring a 3 day summary judgment motion requiring viva voce evidence from a catastrophically injured Plaintiff along with evidence from competing experts on both sides.

http://www.torontoinjurylawyerblog.com/2015/10/when-a-summary-judgment-motion-became-a-full-blown-3-day-mini-trial-anjum-et-al-v-doe-et-al-a-case-study.html#more-821

Government of Saskatchewan approves changes to Tort and No Fault auto injury coverage programs

Changes include improvements to both the Tort and No Fault programs to better meet the needs of customers by providing improved benefits for those most seriously injured, closing gaps in coverage for everyone involved in an auto collision, making changes to help keep coverage affordable and addressing inconsistencies in coverage, SGI said in a statement. Changes to the injury program specific to motorcyclists were announced earlier this year and will be implemented for the 2016 riding season.

http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/government-of-saskatchewan-approves-changes-to-tort-and-no-fault-auto-injury-coverage-programs/1003836733/

http://www.advocatedaily.com/saskatchewan-overhauls-auto-injury-coverage.html

https://www.sgi.sk.ca/pdf/Auto-Injury-Insurance-Review-report.pdf

Consumers hit out against Ontario’s no-fault accident benefit changes

Criticism has been wide, such as an Arilla woman by the name of Tammy Kirkwood, vice-chair of the Fair Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform. She was herself involved in an accident that left her injured and unable to work, and now as part of the Fair Association she has voiced concerns about the new measures.

“The only one who seems to be paying is the victim,” Kirkwood said. (The insurance industry) looks at it (as if) it’s a big pool of money. Anybody that has an accident the day it takes effect will be affected.”

http://www.shopinsurancecanada.ca/blog/news/consumers-hit-out-against-ontario-s-no-fault-accident-benefit-changes/

Why the IBC is calling for lawyer support

Sometimes fraudsters take advantage of innocent motorists to induce collisions. According to the IBC’s investigative unit, there are several typical scenarios.

http://www.insurancebusiness.ca/news/why-the-ibc-is-calling-for-lawyer-support-197494.aspx

Contracting out of the Insurance Act for property damage to a vehicle?

In Hafeez v. Sunaric, a 2015 appeal decision of Perell J, the issue of whether a contract can be enforced for property damage against an at fault driver, given that we have a NoFault system in Ontario, is examined. In this case, the parties were involved in a motor vehicle accident in a parking lot.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5fcb8bf4-1056-4b1c-81a0-baab76f5fb26

Examinations for Discovery (Part 2): I’ll Take Your Refusal Under Advisement

One of the most challenging and important aspects of conducting an examination for discovery is dealing with refusals by opposing counsel. Requests for production of certain privileged documents or for an undertaking to disclose evidence obtained after discovery are often met with: “we will comply with the Rules”. Counsel who know the Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”) and how those rules have been interpreted by the courts can take appropriate steps in the face of such responses.

http://oatleyvigmond.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/OTLA-Discovery-Paper.pdf?7cb50f

Insurance Bureau of Canada urges action to stop auto insurance fraud in Ontario

The Insurance Bureau of Canada has detailed the fraudulent auto insurance activity in the Greater Toronto Area and Ontario as a whole, explaining how fraudsters go about their business and how this epidemic may be stopped. The Bureau also said that brokers and lawyers can play a major part in stopping rife auto insurance fraud in the province, while consumers can also play a part too.

http://www.shopinsurancecanada.ca/blog/news/insurance-bureau-of-canada-urges-action-to-stop-auto-insurance-fraud-in-ontario/