Author Archives: Admin2

March 10, 2020

by Admin2
LSO lawyer directory, Legal Aid Ontario and more 
 
There are resources for selecting a lawyer in Canada, including the LSO directory — but with more than 50,000 lawyers in Ontario alone, it can be a daunting task. Not to mention finding the right type of lawyer — be it a real estate lawyer or insurance lawyer — and figuring out legal aid. 
 
__________________________________________________________________

When can a lawyer withdraw from a case?

“Lawyers are not free to ‘desert their clients at a critical stage of a matter or at a time when withdrawal would put the client in a position of disadvantage or peril,’” wrote Myers, citing commentary in the Rules of Professional Conduct.  “I cannot think of a more critical stage than 19 days before a six-week trial in a complex matter that is a decade old.”  
 
_______________________________________________________________
 
Burden Reduction Progress Report
 
Since its launch, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) has taken significant steps towards regulatory transformation that will reduce regulatory burden and protect the public interest. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Why Aviva Canada’s financial rebound gained momentum in 2019

Aviva Canada’s ongoing profit remediation plan — which took effect after disappointing results posted in 2017 — loomed large in the company’s improved financial results in 2019, the company reported Thursday. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Aviva plc 2019 preliminary results announcement

“Our return on equity was 14.3% and operating profit increased 6% to a record £3.2 billion. Our capital position remains strong and resilient at a 206% Solvency cover ratio. The Board has increased the full year dividend by 3% to 30.9 pence per share. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Investigation exposes law-breaking drivers, dangerous intersections

At Bay and Adelaide streets, we counted 90 offences in a one hour period, that included blocking intersections and crosswalks, forcing pedestrians and cyclists into live traffic, blowing through red lights, and even driving backwards. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Is pothole damage covered by insurers?

Pothole damage is covered under optional auto insurance policies and the municipality can be held liable, but it can prove difficult to be successful in a pothole damage claim against the city. If a personal injury results, then statutory accident benefits might be available. Drivers, of course, can opt to pay for the damage themselves if less than their deductible. 
 

March 5, 2020

by Admin2

IBC reveals the five most common types of fraud

“When someone makes a false or exaggerated claim, it’s the honest policyholders that pay for it,” said IBC national director of investigative services Bryan Gast in the release. 
 
__________________________________________________________________

Lorraine Complains: As tow truck operators go to war, who can you trust?

We get used to reflexively knowing who to call if things suddenly go awry. Police, fire, ambulance — all the emergency services that fly under our radar until we need them. Tow truck drivers are in there, part and parcel of the aftermath of any crash or breakdown on our roads. 
 
________________________________________________________________

City of Toronto and Uber facing $7-million lawsuit over fatal crash

According to the 24-page statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court on February 24, Hawkes and Traikov are each pursuing $3.5 million in damages plus expenses. The statement accuses the city of negligence, breach of statutory duty and abuse of public office. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Do police need a search warrant to obtain a vehicle’s event data recorder?

TORONTO – Police flouted a driver’s rights when they retrieved an electronic recording module from a car wreck days after a crash because they failed to get a search warrant or owner permission first, an Ontario judge has ruled. 
 
______________________________________________________________

IBC questions ICBC’s push for no-fault auto insurance

The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) has issued a statement that puts into question the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia’s (ICBC) capability to support a no-fault auto insurance system. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Near-billion-dollar lawsuit claims ICBC illegally paid victims’ accident benefits to province

B.C.’s public insurer and the provincial government are facing a potential class action lawsuit that could see nearly $1 billion returned to ratepayers and accident victims. 
 
________________________________________________________________

‘Thanks for ripping me off’: B.C. government, ICBC hit with $900M proposed class action lawsuit

A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in B.C. Supreme court which, if successful, could mean every provincially-insured driver and injured crash victim in British Columbia will be in line for a share of almost $1 billion.  
 
______________________________________________________________

Ontario set to announce $20-million boost to give greater access to mental-health therapy programs

The province is rolling out a new program – the first of its kind in Canada – designed to deliver free cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), online, by phone and in person to individuals, families and youth age 10 and up, depending on their need. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Toronto researchers test new rehabilitation method for paralyzed patients

The field of brain-machine interfaces has taken off in recent years, with Silicon Valley leaders joining the fray. Companies such as Facebook and Elon Musk’s Neuralink envision we will one day be able to use this type of technology to control our laptops and smartphones with our thoughts. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Canadian Taxi Association – Seniors, disabled will be impacted as insurance crisis takes up to 1000 taxis off the road

OTTAWA, March 4, 2020 /CNW/ – Senior citizens and others who rely upon Accessible taxis are at risk of losing this service as Ontario’s taxi industry is facing a crisis in insurance coverage. 
 
______________________________________________________________
 

A.K. v Allstate Insurance, 2020 CanLII 14418 (ON LAT), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5f8n  

 
[2]        The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on July 16, 2010.  She was the belted driver of a vehicle that struck the median, spun out of control, struck another vehicle and came to a rest after hitting the guardrail.  The applicant applied for and received benefits pursuant to the Schedule.  She then applied to the respondent for a determination that her accident-related injuries resulted in an impairment that met the statutory threshold for a catastrophic impairment.  The respondent denied her application: in its view, the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.  In response, the applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal – Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) to resolve the dispute.
 
ISSUE IN DISPUTE
[3]        Did the applicant sustain a catastrophic impairment within the meaning of the Schedule as a result of the accident?
 
RESULT
[4]        Based on the totality of the evidence before me, I find that the applicant has sustained a catastrophic impairment within the meaning of the Schedule as a result of the accident.
 
[43]        Dr. Chandrasena, psychiatrist, completed a psychiatric insurer’s examination on July 19, 2017 as part of a multidisciplinary approach that also included an Occupational Therapy In-Home Examination, an Orthopaedic Examination and an Executive Summary.  
 
[56]        I also prefer the evidence of Dr. Becker to that of Dr. Chandrasena. Dr. Becker conduced a thorough and comprehensive review and analysis of the applicant’s mental/behaviour disorder, the impact of the mental or behavioural disorder on the applicant’s life and the resulting level of impairment in view of the impact of the mental or behavioural disorder.  Dr. Chandrasena’s analysis, on the other hand, was cursory in nature and failed to provide an adequate explanation as to how he reached his conclusion that the applicant suffered a class 2 “Mild” impairment in the Adaptation domain as set out in the Guides.  I acknowledge that it is possible that the applicant improved in the time between Dr. Becker’s evaluation and that of Dr. Chandrasena’s. However, I find that Dr. Chandrasena did not provide convincing evidence of this.
 
[57]        Dr. Chandrasena’s draft report dated July 30, 2017 also raises some concerns about his ultimate finding that the applicant sustained a class 2 “Mild” impairment in the Adaptation domain as set out in the Guides. Dr. Chandrasena, in his draft report, indicates that the applicant suffered a class 3 “Moderate” and class 4 “Marked” impairment in the Adaptation domain. Even though those impairment levels were circled by Dr. Chandrasena in his draft report, he testified that he cannot find any evidence to suggest that the applicant is markedly impaired.  He continued to explain that he circled the moderate and marked impairment levels in his draft report as part of a training exercise for the upcoming changes in the legislation. Dr. Chandrasena also went on to explain that the evidence suggests that the applicant has been able to adapt to her circumstances. I do not share this opinion and find Dr. Chandrasena’s explanation regarding his draft report to be troubling. 
 
[58]        Again, the applicant’s mental or behavioural disorders undermine her ability to cope and adjust, leading to an increased perception of pain and increased functional decompensation, resulting in a more pronounced level of disability.  I find that the applicant’s functioning in the area of adaptation has been significantly impeded and that she has been unable to return to the independence she enjoyed before the accident, making it difficult for her to maintain her activities of daily living, continuing social relationships, and completing tasks.  Dr. Chandrasena’s opinion does not persuade me to discount this finding.
 
_______________________________________________________________
 
Aviva General Insurance v. Khan, 2020 ONSC 1290 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5m3q 
 

[1]               The Appellant Insurer appeals from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) ordering the Appellant to pay for medical expenses of the Respondent (also referred to as the “Insured”) pursuant to ss.14-15 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (“SABS”).

[2]               Section 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act provides that appeals from the Tribunal may be made to the Divisional Court, but on a question of law only.

[3]               Applying Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, the standard of review to be applied on this appeal, provided there is a question of law, is correctness. 

[7]               In our view, reading para. 46 as a whole, s. 3(8) is being used by the Tribunal as an alternate basis for ordering the Insurer to pay the expenses in question. The primary basis for making the order was the Tribunal’s view that the expenses had actually been incurred by the Insured within the meaning of s. 3(7) of SABS. This is clear from the first sentence of para. 46, which reads. “While I am mindful that it is the [Insured’s] onus to prove her case, I am not persuaded by the [Insurer’s] suggestion that the Treatment Plan has not been incurred.” In other words, the Tribunal was of the view that the expenses in question had been incurred. Furthermore, there was an evidentiary basis for him to make this finding, including the accounts from the Treatment Provider detailing the services it had provided (which included the disputed services) and the evidence of the Insured that she had had the treatments in question and owed money to the Treatment Provider for those expenses. We also pause to note that to the extent that there may be a dispute about whether an expense was actually “incurred” within the meaning of s. 3(7) of SABS, that is a question of fact, not a question of law.

[8]               For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

March 3, 2020

by Admin2

A look at Ontario’s auto insurance system

Many drivers don’t know the full details of their auto insurance coverage or how it works until they have an accident. 
 
__________________________________________________________________
Think you’re paying too much for Auto Insurance in Ontario?

The report by York University Schulich School of Business Professor Dr. Fred Lazar reveals that Ontario drivers continue to pay excessive auto insurance premiums in Ontario while insurers rack up billion dollar profits. 
_____________________________________

“The IBC represents private insurers and of course they want a slice of the pie,” Antweiler.

“Private companies want to pick up good drivers and push bad drivers into their more expensive default systems.”

______________________________________________________________

Stephen Wiseman: A doctor’s take on no-fault insurance

By now, everyone has heard of the NDP’s about-face on what it describes as the wonderful new world of ICBC no-fault insurance. Increased benefits and decreased premiums for all, says Premier John Horgan, affirming the change as almost “too good to be true.” 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Tribunal Confirms that “Boilerplate” Reasons for Insurer’s Examinations Not Sufficient

Our client had applied for catastrophic impairment determination, which was denied by Aviva Insurance. Aviva scheduled insurer’s examinations, one of which was an otolaryngologist (Ear, Nose and Throat Specialist) assessment. This assessment report was received by the insurer on December 22, 2016. The day prior to that, a new Assessment of Attendant Care Needs (Form 1) was completed on the client’s behalf. Aviva denied the amount of attendant care and scheduled insurer’s examinations to determine the attendant care amount with an occupational therapist and the same otolaryngologist that the insurer had retained to complete the catastrophic assessment.

 
Applicant vs. Aviva General Insurance, 2020 CanLII 14483 (ON LAT), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5fb1
_______________________________________________________________

Statutory Deductibles in Motor Vehicle Cases Explained

On January 1st of each new year, while the rest of us are making New Year’s resolutions and setting (sometime lofty) goals, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA, formerly the Financial Services Commission of Ontario) publishes its updated list of statutory deductibles and the monetary thresholds which negatively impact survivors of auto accidents.   
 
_______________________________________________________________

Another Privacy Tort: Publicity Placing the Plaintiff in a False Light

For almost twelve years, Ontario courts have recognized torts for different types of invasion into a person’s privacy. Recently, a fourth privacy tort was adopted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in a family law case. As a result of Justice Kristjanson’s ruling in the case of Yenovkian v Gulian, 2019 ONSC 7279, Ontario plaintiffs are now able to advance claims for the tort of publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Toronto judge slams Canadian Tire after employee tells court he won’t be paid on jury duty

During recent jury selection for a murder trial in downtown Toronto’s Superior Court, several prospective jurors said their employers had told them they would not be paid or they would receive only partial pay while performing their civic duty. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Province’s new home care legislation will require more PSWs: Home Care Ontario CEO

Ontario will need more personal support workers than it has now if plans to revamp home care medical services are to succeed, says Home Care Ontario chief executive officer Sue VanderBent. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Province’s employment plans being shipped south slammed by Niagara MPP

A low-income advocacy group located in Maine says thousands of families in the state lost their government support after a New York City-based multinational corporation was brought in to run the state’s welfare and employment services. 
 

February 27, 2020

by Admin2

Ford has broken his promise to fix rocketing auto insurance premiums

“Since the premier campaigned on lowering auto insurance rates, can he tell us why his auto insurance rates keep going up, just like they did under the Liberals before him?,” asked Rakocevic during question period at the Ontario legislature on Tuesday. 
 
___________________________________________________________________

Aviva Canada: Public support for the fight against insurance fraud has “overwhelmingly” increased

More Canadians are supportive of efforts to combat rampant insurance fraud than before, and many have also seen the connection between fraud and increased premiums, a new survey found. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

One way ICBC will reduce legal costs

The government of British Columbia has introduced legislative amendments in an effort to reduce costs and speed up motor vehicle claims in the current auto insurance system. 
 
______________________________________________________________

‘I cannot go back to work’: Legal fees eat up nearly 70% of B.C. woman’s ICBC settlement

It’s being described as the perfect example of a broken insurance system. A B.C. woman received just $70,000 out of a $243,495 settlement from ICBC.

______________________________________________________________

The Ontario Caregiver Helpline 

The Ontario Caregiver Helpline provides caregivers with a one-stop resource for information and support. Whether you are looking for respite care in your area, a support group, information about financial supports available to caregivers, as well as help navigating the health and social service systems, the helpline is here to connect you to the resources you need. 

_________________________________________________________

Financial Assistance webinar

Special guests Melissa Vigar and Laura Bellon from the Brain Injury Society of Toronto will be joining Ken to discuss various financial assistance programs, along with their application processes and best practices for best results. If you would like your family’s situation addressed or have a particular question, we may be able to answer it at the webinar. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

‘No end in sight’: The lifetime commitment of caring for a loved one with a brain injury

An avid athlete, Jodi was on her way to soccer practice in south Ottawa when the vehicle she was riding in was T-boned by an SUV. The SUV slammed into the passenger door, right where Jodi was sitting, with enough force to push it in by more than half a metre.  
 

February 25, 2020

by Admin2
SLASTO LAT Statistics update
 
21% of decisions, or about 350 to-date involve ‘transactional activity’, specifically, where the LAT has dealt with procedural matters that may involve the parties having to go through the process more than once
 
_________________________________________

Secret insurance deductible

Year after year many Ontarians who have been involved in car accidents are secretly denied almost $40 000 from their pain and suffering awards. To tell us more we welcomed disability and injury lawyer, Nainesh Kotak. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Industry vet believes it’s time for Canada to adopt Quebec’s auto insurance model

British Columbia’s public auto insurer recently moved to a no-fault system for auto insurance, but at least one P&C industry consultant believes that all Canadian provinces (B.C. included) should instead look towards Quebec’s public-private hybrid auto insurance model for guidance. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Layoffs Loom As Ontario PCs Test Privatizing Job-Search Services

TORONTO — At least one municipality is bracing for layoffs as the Ontario government hands over control of some employment services to a private company, a non-profit and a college.

_______________________________________________________________

‘A recipe for failure:’ Ford government moves to contract out employment services

The Ford government is moving forward with its plans to contract-out employment services in three areas of the province, despite calls from the official opposition that the program will be “a recipe for failure.” 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Ford hires U.S. firm to push Ontarians off welfare

The newest disgrace is a for-profit welfare program quietly launched last month in Peel, Hamilton-Niagara and Muskoka-Kawartha. Adding to the shock of this is the fact the contract was awarded to an American company that will get paid for how quickly it pushes clients through the system — many of whom suffer from addictions, mental health, and disabilities. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Tales from the deep end of the poverty pool: How Ontario Works keeps ODSP from rising and what Oliver Twist might ask

Social assistance for people who don’t have disabilities has been renamed many times. Recipients were formally called ‘relief’ recipients from the 1930’s to the mid 1950’s, ‘welfare’ recipients from the late 1950’s until the 1990’s and Ontario Works recipients in the post millennial era. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

The Difference Between TBI & ABI

When dealing with injured clients and medical professionals, we often hear of the terms ‘TBI’ and ‘ABI’. What do they mean? What is the difference? 
 
_________________________________________________________________
 

Applicant v Unifund Assurance Company, 2020 CanLII 12759 (ON LAT), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5btl

[5]           In my Decision,[1] I found that CAT assessments are not considered a medical benefit and therefore their funding does not fall within the s. 18 limit of $50,000. Further, I found that the CAT assessments are reasonable and necessary.

[6]           Unifund requested a reconsideration of the Decision on the grounds that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. The criteria for reconsideration on this ground is set out in Rule 18.2 (b) of the Tribunal’s Common Rules.[2]

[7]           The respondent requests that the Decision be varied to find that the applicant is not entitled to the CAT assessments in the amount of $15,872 because the cost exceeds the s. 18 monetary limits for medical and rehabilitation benefits available for non-CAT injuries. Further, the respondent argues that the proposed CAT assessments are neither reasonable nor necessary.

[22]        The bar for granting costs is high. However, in this case the bar is met. The request for reconsideration was a frivolous request.

[23]        The respondent, represented by counsel, has failed to provide any basis to support its claim. It simply repeats arguments already heard and decided in the Decision. In addition, it alleges errors of law with no supporting argument or evidence. The respondent’s submissions appear to make no effort to meet the test for a reconsideration. When considering the powers of the Tribunal to award costs under Rule 19.5, I find that this request is frivolous and interferes with the Tribunal’s efficient and effective process in adjudicating disputes.

[24]        The amount awarded shall be nominal. The applicant requests $1500 in costs. Rule 19.6 of the Common Rules limits the amount of costs to $1000 for each full day of attendance at a motion, case conference or hearing. Given the brevity of the respondent’s submissions, I find that only a nominal amount should be granted.
 

[25]        Given the frivolous nature of the request for reconsideration, I find that it is appropriate to grant an amount for costs. Therefore, I am granting the applicant costs in the amount of $100.

__________________________________

M.R. v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2019 CanLII 110112 (ON LAT), <http://canlii.ca/t/j3gn5  

[1]      The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on March 18, 2015. She sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule[1] (the ”Schedule”).  When some of these benefits were denied by the respondent, she applied to the Tribunal.

[2]      In a decision dated June 21, 2019, I found she was entitled to an income replacement benefit (limited to January 5, 2016 to June 3, 2017). I then denied her entitlement to an attendant care benefit, and I ordered that the applicant was unable to proceed with her application for three disputed treatment plans, on account of her non-attendance at two insurer’s examinations.

[3]      The applicant takes issue with this decision, and so she has filed a Request for Reconsideration. Specifically, the applicant is seeking an order granting her entitlement to the denied benefits, as well as an order to allow her to proceed with her application for the disputed treatment plans. In response, the respondent is asking me to uphold my original decision.

[4]      Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009[2], I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Tribunal.

[5]      For the reasons that follow, the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed. However, upon further review, I also find that my decision to grant an income replacement benefit from March 16, 2017 to June 3, 2017 was unreasonable.

[30]   Though I do not conclude that I made a reversible error concerning the benefit after June 3, 2017, I do find that I erred in awarding an income replacement benefit from March 16, 2017 to June 3, 2017.

[31]   In my original decision, I concluded that the applicant did not have a “complete inability” to pursue any reasonable form of employment or self-employment due to her ability to return to work with a high-end fashion store on June 4, 2017. As noted above, I stand by this reasoning. 

[32]   However, upon further review of my original decision, I noted that I did not make a specific finding made about the brief period from the 104-week mark to June 4, 2017. This failure to make a finding (and to instead award the benefit) amounted to a reversal of the applicant’s onus. That is, the applicant has an onus of demonstrating her entitlement to an income replacement benefit. By failing to make a finding, I effectively found that the respondent had failed to prove she should not be entitled to the benefit. This reversal is a significant error of law that must be addressed.

[33]   Therefore, by upholding my earlier finding that the applicant’s ability to return to comparable, pre-accident work demonstrated that she did not suffer from a “complete inability” from June 4, 2017 onwards, I then find that the brief gap in time between the 104-week mark and this return to work is strong evidence that she never met the “complete inability” standard. As such, I find that the applicant did not demonstrate her entitlement to any income replacement benefit following the 104-week mark.

[34]   The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed. The applicant is no longer owed an income replacement benefit from March 16, 2017 to June 3, 2017, nor is she owed any interest from this period.

______________________________________________________

Patterson v. Peladeau, 2020 ONCA 137 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5ckf  

[1]This appeal arises from the trial judge’s dismissal of motions to strike the jury and to declare a mistrial in a motor vehicle personal injury action: Patterson v. Peladeau, 2018 ONSC 2625, 80 C.C.L.I. (5th) 213. During the jury’s deliberations, the jury asked the court a question that revealed that it may have accessed inappropriate extrinsic information, namely, a statutory provision that was irrelevant and inapplicable to this case, but which, if applied, could impact the apportionment of liability.

[2]The trial judge questioned the jury foreperson, who revealed that he had found the provision on an Ontario government website on the weekend at the beginning of the deliberations, and then shared it with the other jurors. The foreperson also revealed that this was the full extent of the extrinsic information and that no other juror had accessed the internet in relation to the case.

[3]Based on these answers, the trial judge was satisfied that he did not need to question the other jurors and that this issue, while serious, could be dealt with through a correcting charge. He dismissed the appellants’ pre-verdict motion to strike the jury, as well as their post-verdict motion to declare a mistrial.

[4]The appellants now appeal to this court. They contend that the trial judge failed to conduct a proper inquiry as to what extrinsic information the jury had obtained and then failed to analyze its prejudicial effect. The appellants assert that the trial judge should have polled every juror or permitted counsel to question them.

[5]For the reasons that follow, we do not agree with the appellants’ submissions and dismiss the appeal.

_____________________________________________________

Dimech v. Osman, 2020 ONSC 1084 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j59mx  

[3]         For the reasons that follow, I find that the defendants have not met their evidentiary burden to establish that there is no serious issue requiring a trial on the limitation period issue. Therefore, the motion must be dismissed. The limitation period will remain an issue for trial. 

[20]      The plaintiff concedes that he knew or ought to have known that his injuries were “serious” during the 37-day pre-limitation period window But, he submits, there was no indication in the medical records from that period that his injuries would be “permanent” or that they would impair an “important…function” permanently. The plaintiff argues that in the 37 days after his accident, he had not even begun rehabilitation. His injuries were still acute. He was being treated. His psychiatrist had deferred providing an assessment. He was seeing his surgeon and family doctor for ongoing treatment. He followed their advice regarding treatment and follow-up. It was too early to know if his pain would become chronic or his injuries permanent.

[37]      As the defendants have not established that there is no serious issue requiring a trial, the motion must be and is hereby dismissed. 

February 20, 2020

by Admin2

Ford should tackle auto insurance rip-off

There must be a shelf somewhere deep in the bowels of the Ontario government reserved for studies showing that drivers in this province pay way too much for auto insurance.

Prominently featured would be a 2017 report carried out by David Marshall, a former CEO of Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, for the former Wynne government

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2020/02/18/ford-should-tackle-auto-insurance-rip-off.html

______________________________________________

End of road for vehicle occupant sued for negligent parenting

A defendant in a negligent parenting lawsuit cannot make a liability claim under the auto policy of the vehicle in which he and his daughter were riding as passengers. 
 
______________________________________________________________

Insurance rate increases absolutely unacceptable: NDP Critic for Service Alberta

That’s how much auto insurance rates skyrocketed by for some Albertans at the end of this year, after Premier Jason Kenney and the UCP removed the five per cent cap on rate increases that our NDP government brought in, taking a “no limit” approach to how much insurance companies could actually raise rates.
 
_______________________________________________________________

Ian Mulgrew: Legal community bristling over Eby’s legerdemain

The Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. feels played by Attorney-General David Eby, considering him more like Machiavelli, the Italian political schemer, than a champion of civil rights and transparent government. 
 
______________________________________________________________

I used to own a condo in Toronto. How I ended up living in Dufferin Grove Park

As a young woman, I was a flight attendant for Air Canada. In 1990, during a layover in Zagreb, I was pushed out of an airport bus by a passenger who was rushing to catch her plane. The bus exit was several feet off the ground, and I fell, head first, onto the concrete. The impact caused severe brain damage: for years, I was unable to read and barely able to speak. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

No one is safe from Canada’s third leading cause of death.

Every year, 28,000 Candians die from preventable heathcare harm. Silence plays a major role. If something about your treatment feels wrong, looks wrong or is wrong, speak up—in the moment 
 
_______________________________________________________________
 

Brain Injury Speaks, the Stakeholder Engagement Network of Ontario

Thank you for your interest in joining Brain Injury Speaks, the Stakeholder Engagement Network of Ontario. We hope to strengthen the voice of the brain injury community across Ontario. 
______________________________________________________________

A tiny area of the brain may enable consciousness, says “exhilarating” study

In a wild new experiment conducted on monkeys, scientists discovered that a tiny, but powerful area of the brain may enable consciousness: the central lateral thalamus. Activation of the central lateral thalamus and deep layers of the cerebral cortex drives pathways in the brain that carry information between the parietal and frontal lobe in the brain, the study suggests. 
 

Tammy Kirkwood submission to Budget Consultation 2020

by Admin2

Thank you for the opportunity to give you my recommendations for the 2020 Budget.

The Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule in the Auto Insurance File needs to be
modernized to protect injured victims.

Catastrophically injured survivors require timely access to substantial funding and
resources to assist them in achieving maximum recovery.

The $2,000,000 base for Catastrophic injuries that was in existence for over 20 years,
was supposed to be reinstated up from the reduction to $1 million made in 2016. The
public is still waiting! With the costs of services increasing, even the $2 million dollars
doesn’t cover all the needs of a person who has suffered a life changing injury. This
government should follow through on their plan to take action for these injured people. It
is noted that even going back up to $2 million is about half of what was available to
Catastrophically injured persons 25 years ago when adjusted for inflation.

The Insurers are traumatizing survivors with the amount as well as the poor quality of
Independent Medical Examinations (IME) that they use to determine the extent of the
injuries. A three strikes rule would allow the insurers to fight against fraud in the system
without halting the recovery of the injured person. Implementing a three strikes rule
protects Ontario inured MVA survivors from improper and unqualified assessors and
their medical reports.

A roster of IME doctors, who are up to date in their training, without regulatory College
cautions on their record and who are truly qualified in their specialties should be a goal
of this government. Communications with treating physicians needs to be necessary to
ask for clarifications of submitted reports.

Attention should be on how and why there is a current $935,000.00 difference in
rehabilitation resources between being seriously injured ($65,000 for non-catastrophic)
and Catastrophic injuries ($1 million). This gap is where many people fall through the
cracks when they cannot get the treatment they need.

There should be independence in the system to ensure Ontario’s injured drivers are
getting the help they need and not just what insurers feel they want to pay for.

We are mandated to purchase a product that isn’t covering us in our time of need.

Will this government provide the leadership to fix it?

Tammy Kirkwood, February 11, 2020

February 18, 2020

by Admin2

For-profit welfare scheme draws concerns

“Where I get worried about it, is thinking around, really, what are the goals? What are the incentive structures put in place and who will be administering this?” asked the researcher and family physician with St. Michael’s Hospital’s City Health Associates. “We know there will be private companies bidding to help administer this system. That, to me, is extremely concerning.”

DOUG FORD OPENS WELFARE FOR BUSINESS

A recent article in the Catholic Register informs us that the Ford government will run ‘a three-year pilot program in for-profit welfare in Hamilton-Niagara, Peel and Muskoka-Kawartha.’ The paper goes on to say that, “These three regions will be the forerunners of a province-wide system the government has already mapped out. Eventually, Ontario will be carved into 15 regions. In each region, municipalities, non-profits and for-profit corporations will be invited to bid through a “Request for Proposals” process to manage the caseload of clients on Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) in each region.”

Ontario Adopting Process to Better Connect Job Seekers in Hamilton-Niagara With Good Jobs

_______________________________________________________________

EDITORIAL: Auto insurance needs an overhaul

The consumer group FAIR (Fair Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform) say this means victims have to hire their own lawyers and medical experts to counter their insurer’s lawyers and medical experts to get benefits for which they’ve paid.
 
______________________________________________________________

New report shows Ontario auto insurance rates jumped by 20 per cent over three years

“When you add up all the profit that [the insurance companies] are making on home insurance, commercial insurance and auto insurance in the other provinces, it still does not equal what they’re making in profit just on auto insurance in Ontario,” he explained.
 
______________________________________________________________

Two Recent LAT Cases See Special Awards Against Insurers Who Unreasonably Withheld Payment to Applicants

When an applicant has to dispute an unreasonably denied benefit in front of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), the adjudicator is able to award a special award in addition to the amount in dispute in the form of a lump sum payment of up to 50% of the amount to which the person was entitled. This power comes from section 10 of Ontario Regulation 664, R.R.O. 1990. An unreasonable denial has been interpreted by the courts to mean one that is “excessive, imprudent, stubborn, inflexible, unyielding or immoderate.”[1]
 
_______________________________________________________________

Most Canadian P&C professionals would prefer a single auto insurance model nation-wide: CU poll

Most property and casualty insurance professionals across the country would like to see a single business model for auto insurance across Canada – as long as it’s the one in their home province, it seems.
 
_______________________________________________________________

Self-represented litigants struggle to be heard at the Supreme Court of Canada

Supreme Court statistics show there is only a 0.23 per cent chance a self-represented litigant will be granted leave to appeal to the country’s top court, which takes on cases it considers to be of public importance.
 
________________________________________________________________

Government looking into reports new Ontario licence plates are unreadable at night

“We have been made aware that some Ontarians are reporting concerns with readability to the naked-eye under certain light conditions,” the office of Minister of Government and Consumer Services Lisa Thompson said in an email Monday.
 
_______________________________________________________________

Webinar Registration- Financial Assistance Programs

Special guests Melissa Vigar and Laura Bellon from the Brain Injury Society of Toronto will be joining Ken to discuss various financial assistance programs, along with their application processes and best practices for best results. If you would like your family’s situation addressed or have a particular question, we may be able to answer it at the webinar.
 
___________________________________________________

S.R. v. Aviva Insurance Canada, 2019 CanLII 126104 (ON LAT), <http://canlii.ca/t/j4ggf 

[6]      Through the November Notices, the respondent scheduled the following IEs: an orthopaedic assessment, a functional abilities evaluation, and a job site evaluation.  The Tribunal found, that although the November Notices included a valid medical reason for each examination, the respondent failed to provide the applicant with sufficient notice for the functional abilities evaluation and the jobsite evaluation because they did not fully comply with s. 44(5). Specifically, they lacked details regarding the professions of the individuals conducting the examinations. 
9]      I agree that the Tribunal erred. In short, the Orthopaedic Notice did not comply with s. 44(5)(c) of the Schedule. Finding that it did was a significant error. Thus, I grant this reconsideration request  and, therefore, will not deal with the applicant’s second basis for the reconsideration request, that is the allegation of a lack of medical reasons in the Orthopaedic Notice.
[10]   In accordance with s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule, an insured person shall not apply to the Tribunal if the insurer has provided the insured person notice “in accordance with this Regulation” that it requires an examination under s. 44 but has not complied. 
[14]   Although this may be a technical oversight, not all individuals with a “Dr.” prefix before their names are medical doctors and/or qualified to conduct an orthopaedic assessment. 
[15]   While I agree with the Tribunal that one could reasonably ascertain by his title and designation the type of assessment being scheduled, I do not agree that one could reasonably ascertain the regulated health profession to which Dr. Yee belongs.  However, even if the applicant could have reasonably ascertained the information, this is not the applicant’s obligation.  Instead, that is information that, according to the Schedule, an insurer must provide the applicant. 
[16]   Without referencing another source, the applicant could not have known Dr. Yee’s regulated health profession. It is not up to the applicant to find out the information that the insurer was to provide.  I agree with the applicant that it was entirely in the insurer’s hands to ensure that the notice was in accordance with the Schedule.[2]  In this case, it was not, and the Tribunal’s focus on the applicant’s ability to reasonably ascertain the missing information was a significant error.
[17]   The Tribunal should not assume that an applicant would be able to ascertain information that was missing.  It is worth repeating that one of the main objectives of insurance law, including the Schedule, is consumer protection.[3] The information that the insurer was required to provide the applicant was to be provided in “straightforward and clear language, directed toward an unsophisticated person.”[4]
20]   In accordance with s. 37 of the Schedule, the respondent was not entitled to discontinue paying the IRB on the basis that the applicant failed to attend the s. 44 IE given that the Orthopaedic Notice was non-compliant with the Schedule. 
[21]   The applicant indicated in his reconsideration submissions that the respondent never took issue with the applicant’s entitlement to IRBs and based its entire reason for not paying the IRBs on the s. 55(1)2 exclusion clause. The respondent did not refute this submission.
[22]   Therefore, I order that the IRB is payable to the applicant for the period that it was withheld, specifically from December 3, 2015 to October 11, 2016. 
[23]   The applicant has requested a ruling on an award pursuant to s. 10 of Ontario Regulation 664 regarding the withheld IRB for the period of December 3, 2015 to October 11, 2016.  
[24]   In accordance with s.10 of Ontario Regulation 664, in addition to awarding benefits, the Tribunal may order an award if it finds that the insurer unreasonably withheld a benefit. 
[25]   Merely because an insurer failed to comply with the Schedule does not mean that the applicant is entitled to an award.  An insurer may fail to comply with the Schedule without acting unreasonably.  In this case, even though the insurer did not fully comply with the Schedule, I do not find that the errors in the Orthopaedic Notice reach the threshold of unreasonably withholding or delaying a benefit contemplated in s.10 of Ontario Regulation 664.
[26]   Accordingly, I find that the applicant is not entitled to an award on the IRBs payable for the period of December 3, 2015 to October 11, 2016.
 

February 13, 2020

by Admin2

FAIR Submission on Third Party Reports and Medical Experts: Reports and Testimony

Ontario’s courts are bottlenecked with claimants whose files are loaded with poor quality, unqualified or just plain biased medical information. There’s no shortage of statements from Ontario’s judges about the quality of the Third Party Reports and Expert testimony in relation to your members – isn’t it about time you, as Regulator, took an interest in that record? 
 
http://policyconsult.cpso.on.ca/?page_id=12360  Patients speak out at their rough treatment at the hands of Ontario’s IME providers

___________________________________________________

Why are Ontarians possibly overpaying billions in auto insurance?

“The companies being regulated expend a lot of money on lobbying and government relations and are able to convince regulators to tread lightly. Politicians are afraid to call the positions of insurance companies…So they take the safe route. I think regulators should call their bluff.”

Average premiums per vehicle have increased by 2.4 per cent between 2010 and 2018, while average claims per vehicle have declined by 10 per cent, the report says.

The OTLA sought out economist Lazar to formulate estimates because insurance companies are not required to publicly report profits from their auto insurance operations in Ontario.

“As Ontarians, we’re not given that information but we’re asked to pay more,” Wynperle says. “There should be greater transparency. That begins with public disclosure.”
[]

Since the amendments requiring insurance companies to cover the HST were approved June 3, at least two insurance companies — Intact and Belair Direct — publicly announced they will comply. But other major companies have resisted.

“The extent to which a handful of insurance heavyweights continue to thumb their noses at the regulator, the government and their own clients is appalling,” says Paul Harte, a Toronto lawyer who has filed class-action lawsuits against insurance companies. Though the filing of the suits predates the June 3 HST amendments, Harte alleges ongoing HST violations. “Without action to bring greater transparency and accountability to this industry, a number of players will continue to use their wealth and power to the detriment of victims and car drivers.”

As recently as Nov. 26, 2019, Aviva wrote a claimant advising “HST has been included in the limits on this claim.”

________________________________________________________________
 
What’s really behind Ontario auto rate increases
 
_______________________________________________________________

Think you’re paying too much for Auto Insurance in Ontario? 

_______________________________________________________________

Ontario’s Auto Insurance Rates are Increasing Up to 11% and Will Remain Among Highest in Canada

_______________________________________________________________

Province gives green light to auto insurance hikes

________________________________________________________________

Compilation – OTLA

_______________________________________________________________

Should a plaintiff’s failure to get treatment be used to reduce any damages award – Little v. Floyd Sinton Limited, 2019 ONCA 865

The accident occurred on the last day of school in grade 8, Ms. Little had been riding the school bus for several years, was a trained bus patroller, and had been taught how to open the emergency doors. She had been instructed that it was dangerous to jump from the back of the bus when it was moving. 
 
______________________________________________________________

B.C.’s no-fault insurance system to scrap payments for future earnings

VICTORIA — B.C.’s new no-fault insurance system will freeze compensation for a person’s salary to whatever they were earning at the time of their crash, eliminating the ability in most cases to get extra money for lost future wages. 
 
________________________________________________________________

Participate in Research

As confirmed by our Masters student research intern Emily Giroux in the video above, your personal experience and insights can help change the world. Whether it’s a quick online survey or a few days in a clinical setting, participating in research advances the science of SCI and helps those living with SCI in any number of important ways. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Recovering from a concussion: what adults should know

Concussions are injuries to the brain, most commonly resulting after a fall, motor vehicle collision or sports injury. The impact causes the brain to move in the skull, essentially stretching the brain cells and causing chemical changes that trigger symptoms. At the most recent Speaker Series – Concussions & Traumatic Brain Injury: Facts, Fiction and Fundamentals for Prevention and Recovery – occupational therapist Elke McLellan discussed the best tips for adults for recovery and returning to activity safely. 
 

February 11, 2020

by Admin2

Auto insurance rates in Ontario going up as much as 11%

Radio-Canada has learned that the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) has given the green light to increases in automobile insurance premiums for some 20 insurance companies in the province. 
 
___________________________________________________________________

Ontario’s average cost of auto insurance among the most expensive in the country

Radio-Canada has learned that the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) has given the green light to increases in automobile insurance premiums for some 20 insurance companies in the province. 
 
________________________________________________________________

Secret insurance deductible was just raised again, now almost $40,000

Insurance deductible for pain and suffering nears eye-popping $40,000

How happy would you be if an insurance company automatically scooped nearly $40,000 from an award issued after you sustained a serious injury in a car accident? 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Insurance Companies get a Secret Credit for your pain and suffering in Ontario car accident cases

Did you know that Ontario car insurance companies are entitled to a secret credit approaching $40,000 for your pain and suffering in car accident cases? Probably not. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

What is Adverse Costs Insurance? Do I need It?

Generally speaking, in Ontario, we have a ‘loser pays legal fees system’. This means that the unsuccessful party in a lawsuit can expect to be ordered to pay at least part of the successful side’s legal costs. In personal injury litigation it’s not uncommon for the losing party in a trial to be ordered to pay legal costs awards in the range of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Industry to see single entity for anti-fraud services

Insurance Bureau of Canada’s (IBC) board of directors said in a press release Monday it has agreed to create an industry advisory group on fraud. The formation of the advisory group will lead to the development of a strategy to ensure a smooth transition of anti-fraud services into the single entity. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

From no-fault hater to no-fault lover: The inside story on David Eby’s decision to revamp ICBC

It took an admission to himself that he’d misjudged the ferocity of the fight against reforms by personal injury lawyers, horror stories about how the existing system still fails customers, the help of top officials from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and the warnings of massive rate hikes in the next few years even though his contentious previous reforms were successful. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Major overhaul of ICBC could see rates drop by 20%, with lawyers cut out of system, province says

The province claims that Insurance Corporation of B.C. premiums will drop by as much as 20 per cent — an average of $400 a year — as the insurer moves to introduce a system designed to redirect hundreds of millions of dollars spent in legal costs each year to directly benefit people injured in crashes. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Canadians with lifelong disabilities can lose disability tax credit

When Robert Morley got the news that his application for the federal disability tax credit (DTC) had been denied in December 2019, he felt a mix of emotions, he said. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

One in five Canadians suffers from mental stress. So why are mental disability claims so frequently denied?

Canadian workplaces are riddled with depression and anxiety. In any given year, one in five Canadians suffers a mental health issue. This is further exacerbated by dismissal. Even our Supreme Court has recognized that losing one’s job often represents losing one’s identity. 
 
_______________________________________________________________
 
Citizen Advisory Group
The Citizen Advisory Group helps bring the patient voice and perspective to healthcare regulation in Ontario. The group was formed in 2015 as a patient feedback tool for the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario. Since then, we have grown into a partnership of 18 health regulatory Colleges who are eager to engage patients in their work.
Patient Compass
The Citizen Advisory Group helps bring the patient voice and perspective to health-care regulation in Ontario. This important Group is made up of patients and caregivers from across the province, and provides input on standards of practice, policies and strategic priorities. The Group supports many of Ontario’s health regulatory colleges who want to engage patients in their work.