At the Opening of the Courts this week in Ontario, Justice Strathy, the new Chief Justice for the Province, gave a speech which highlighted how the court system is largely inaccessible to the majority of the public, largely due to the cost, complexity and time involved.
Author Archives: Admin2
Appealing arbitration
On Aug. 1, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously reversed a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and restored an arbitration award which the latter court had found to be “absurd.” The award had been delivered in 2008 by Leon Getz, a seasoned commercial arbitrator in Vancouver. http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&volume=34&number=18&article=3
Expert Opinions and the Garbage In Garbage Out Principle
The Plaintiff suffered from chronic neck pain and headaches following the collision. The Defendant arranged a defense medical exam with a physician who minimized the connection of the collision to the Plaintiff’s chronic symptoms noting the plaintiff had degenerative changes and that “he likely would have become symptomatic regardless of the accident“.
In rejecting this opinion the Court noted that the physicians assumed facts differed from those accepted by the Court and provided the following reasons:
Self-represented litigants want more respect from judges
Law researchers from the University of Windsor want judges to be more understanding of people handling their own cases.
Mitigation Of Damages – “The Law Does Not Encourage Indolence”
[38] The law does not encourage indolence. An injured party has a duty to mitigate: see Graham v. Rogers, 2001 BCCA 432, at para. 35. In this type of case, the plaintiff must seek and follow the advice of his or her physician with the goal of overall improvement and recovery. http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/
NEED FOR EXAMINATIONS – Letter to the Editor
Re “Auto insurance bonanza” (Alan Shanoff, Aug. 31): There is a need by insurers to spend on Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs). The reason is to ensure people who need treatment get the right treatment and to control overall costs for the millions of consumers who buy auto insurance in Ontario. Everyone knows there is a fraud problem. Insurance companies use IMEs to combat fraud. Clearly Mr. Shanoff would prefer that every lawyer and for-profit health provider diagnose almost every claimant with severe injuries to access more benefits.
Ralph Palumbo, Vice-President, Ontario Region, Insurance Bureau of Canada
(Alan Shanoff has never suggested there is no fraud in the auto insurance industry. What he has argued, convincingly, is that your industry spends far too much time and money fighting, denying and delaying legitimate claims) – Editor
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/09/letters-to-the-editor-sept-10
FAIR response: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/09/letters-to-the-editor-sept-10#comment-1582808288
DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNTS SPENT ON INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS DRIVE CLAIM COSTS
With the questionable value of IMEs to the dispute process and with IBC’s intense focus on reducing claim costs, why do insurers continue to spend such significant amounts on IMEs?
Mr. Cunningham may have indirectly answered this question when he explained in his Final Report, that “…their reports and testimony are often used by insurers in the DRS to support benefit denials… [and] the IE assessor is selected because he or she might support the insurer’s position.”
The Failure of Law Societies to Accept Their Duty in Law to Solve the Unaffordable Legal Services Problem
Canada’s law societies have a duty in law to solve the “unaffordable legal services problem,” i.e., that the majority of the population cannot obtain legal services at reasonable cost. The problem has been developing over decades during which years the law societies have failed to act. The problem has caused severe damage to: (1) the population for lack of legal services; (2) the courts by the “clogging” caused by self-represented litigants; (3) the legal profession which is contracting when it could be expanding, in spite of very negative forecasts for its future; and (4) to the funding of legal aid organizations because it is not “politically wise” to provide adequate or increased funding for free legal services for poor people while the majority of taxpayers have no affordable legal services. The theme of this article is that the law societies have not acted because they do not accept the proposition that it is their duty in law to solve the problem, as are the problems created by incompetent and unethical lawyers.
Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage: 2014 update
This paper is intended as an overview of the current law in Ontario regarding uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. Although these areas have certain similarities – both are highly complex, technical areas of the law that arise when there is insufficient insurance to cover the plaintiff’s damages – there are critical distinctions between the two. Prior to working on any case involving either uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage, every lawyer should review the sources of coverage and the recent case law.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=43ccc31e-3462-40cd-8305-6b2cc60ec248