Time for a Shift in Auto Insurance
For the first time in 15 years the Liberals are no longer the party in power in Ontario. When the Liberals came into power in 2003, Ontario had a generous mandatory no-fault accident benefits for those injured in automobile crashes and corresponding limits on innocent victims’ right to sue at-fault drivers in tort. Over the past 15 years this quid pro quo has been eroded: no-fault benefits have been slashed while the rights for innocent victims to sue in tort have been further limited. It is a double whammy for Ontarians, reduced no-fault benefits and limited rights to sue in tort.
______________________________ ______________________________ _______
How much does privacy really mean to insurance customers? If it means lowering insurance prices, perhaps not that much.
______________________________ ______________________________ _____
Reporting Unsafe Drivers: The New Role of Occupational Therapists in Ontario
Driving is an important daily activity for many and provides drivers with an independent means to get around and to manage our own needs outside of the home. It reduces our reliance on others and provides us with freedom and control. But it is a privilege, not a right, and sometimes people reach a point where driving is no longer safe, but yet they don’t voluntarily stop.
______________________________ ______________________________ ____
On Keeping Faith Following Severe Car Crashes
Now that you have survived a horrible car crash that has turned your life upside down, you may find yourself thinking frequently about how you could have died or suffered even more serious injuries. The fact of the matter is you were a victim and now you are a survivor. You would think the road ahead is just a matter of getting the help you need to recover and heal. Unfortunately, for many people, the crash may only be the beginning of victimization experiences.
______________________________ ______________________________ ___
Embedding consumer protection in competition policy
Governments have good reason to take consumer protection seriously, and not just because of the massive contribution consumer spending makes to the economy, nor the fact that consumers are also voters. Consumers today are key drivers and sources of innovation. The demanding and well-informed consumer helps to drive competition and forces firms to innovate. When consumers have confidence in the marketplace and the rules governing it, they are more likely to accept innovative new products and services, which are the essence of how advanced industrial economies can ensure sustainable job and income growth.
_______________________________________________________________
[69] In fact, there are any number of circumstances in which someone may be injured due to a defect in a car. For example, a defective wheel or tire could cause a drive to lose control or a defective exhaust system could cause the occupants of a car to become ill. There is no principled reason for differentiating between circumstances in which the defect leads to a sudden injury and circumstances in which the injury is caused over a period of time.
[70] Economical makes a floodgates argument, arguing that allowing the arbitration will mean that anyone who develops any kind of repetitive injury due to the use of a motor vehicle could make a claim for accident benefits. The flaw in Economical’s argument is that the basis for the arbitrator’s decision was that Mr. Newman’s impairment was caused by the collapsed seat, and not by the ongoing strain caused to his body by driving generally. In this respect, it is noteworthy that Economical’s battle is with State Farm and not with Mr. Newman. It is evident that, while State Farm takes the position that Economical is the priority insurer, it initially accepted Mr. Newman’s claim and accepted that Mr. Newman’s impairment was caused by an accident.
[71] While a different arbitrator may have reached a different conclusion, the arbitrator’s decision that Mr. Newman was involved in an accident falls within “a range of possible, acceptable outcomes” given the facts and the law. Accordingly, in my view, the arbitrator’s finding that Mr. Newman’s impairment was caused by an accident is reasonable.
