Ontario auto insurance changes announced last week are “unlikely” to reduce disputes over accident benefits claims, an insurance defence lawyer predicts, but brokers and insurers agree the provincial government is moving in the right direction.
A private member’s bill that would have made Ontario the first province in Canada with a vulnerable road users law has been quashed.
The legislature’s Justice Policy Committee voted last week against adding proposals from the NDP’s Cheri DiNovo to Bill 174 seeking to toughen penalties for distracted and dangerous drivers.
[26] There was no evidence by an economic loss expert to present value the future medical treatments, whatever they might be, or future care costs.
[27] Simply put, there was no evidence to provide the jury with the necessary tools to determine what future medical treatments and care costs were reasonable and necessary. There was no evidence as to the frequency of those future treatments, over what period of time and what medication would be required. Also, there was no evidence to quantify and present value those costs.
[28] In El Khodr v. Lackie, 2017 ONCA 716 (CanLII) at para. 22, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that where the costs of future prescription medications were justified on the evidence, the jury ought to have been instructed not to award any sum for drug benefits after the Plaintiff reached the age of sixty-five (65). From that age forward, the Plaintiff suffers no loss because drug claims would be covered by the ODBP.
[29] In my view, we do not even approximate this issue in El Khodr. Rather, the jury is left much in the same way as it would be left regarding the future loss of income claim. The jury is left to speculate, pulling a number out of thin air.
[30] Again, I find there is not sufficient evidence on which a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, in accordance with a judge’s instructions on the law, could reasonably calculate or quantify the Plaintiff’s future medical treatment or care costs claim. Accordingly, this question will not be put to the jury.
DRAFT QUESTION 1(e): FUTURE MILEAGE EXPENSE TO MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS
[31] The Plaintiff submits that there is sufficient evidence upon which this question ought to be left to the jury. The Plaintiff submits that mileage from where she currently lives to Dr. Steciuk’s (chiropractor) office is less than five kilometres. There was no other evidence as to the cost of any such mileage. There was no costing as to the frequency of the Plaintiff’s attendances on health care providers for medical appointments. Those providers have not been identified. There was no indication other than the location of Dr. Steciuk’s office as to where these other providers are located, how often the Plaintiff would have to attend upon those providers, what the costing would be and what the present value of the mileage expense would be. Rather, I find that the same reasoning regarding the previous two questions also applies to this question. This question, like the others, invites speculation on the part of the jury without a sufficient evidentiary foundation.
[32] I find there is not sufficient evidence on which a properly instructed jury, acting judicially in accordance with the judge’s instructions on the law, could reasonably calculate or quantify the Plaintiff’s future mileage expense to medical appointments claim. Accordingly, this question will not be put to the jury.
Personal injury lawyers say a recent arbitrator’s decision is a strong rebuke of expert bias that highlights the problem of professionally paid experts in insurance dispute cases.
Every time the Ontario government announces yet another attempt to lower auto insurance rates, it parrots the insurance industry mantra that the major problem is insurance fraud.
It’s time to get real. Insurance fraud is a problem, but it’s only one of them.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/
Ontario has released a plan to make automobile insurance more affordable by addressing fraud and providing better access to care, but observers say there needs to be some fundamental changes in the system to ensure it works to maximize the benefit for all consumers.
Allowing lawyers to challenge jurors for bias could help preserve the civil jury system in the long run, says Ottawa personal injury lawyer Najma Rashid.
Rashid, a partner with Howard Yegendorf & Associates, tells AdvocateDaily.com that an increasing number of plaintiffs’ lawyers would welcome the abolition of juries in civil matters due to the perception that they have become biased against claimants.
http://www.advocatedaily.com/n
One week prior to my accident, I was on vacation in Florida with my boyfriend and I was suddenly jolted awake in the middle of the night with a terrible feeling that something awful had happened to someone close to me. It was a feeling that I had never experienced before and I thought I was going to get a call that someone had passed unexpectedly. I carried this feeling with me for days and I just couldn’t seem to shake this unsettling anxious feeling no matter how hard I tried. One week “to the day” I was involved in a horrific car accident.
Labanowicz v Fort Erie (Town) (2017) is a civil suit involving a plaintiff who fell while cycling and sustained a life-altering brain injury, after coming into contact with an unmarked obstacle in the middle of a paved municipal trail. Pursuant to the Occupiers’ Liability Act, the plaintiff’s claim alleged that the municipality was negligent in causing the unsafe condition, by failing to mark or warn cyclists of a housing on the trail that could cause injury if struck by an unsuspecting cyclist. The judge in this case found in favour of the plaintiff, as the empty housings on the trail were a known hazard and there were recommendations previously made to Town Council to mark these obstacles.