It has been just more than a year and a half since responsibility for adjudicating accident benefits disputes was transferred to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which decides on claims and licensing regulations involving a number of provincial ministries.
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/au thor/shannon-kari/flaws-have-e merged-in-new-lat-15004/
“What we see is an increasing percentage of fatally injured drivers in Canada who tested positive for marijuana in recent years, whereas the percentage who tested positive for alcohol is decreasing,” explains Dr. Heather Woods-Fry, a research associate with the Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF). “While the percent is still higher for alcohol today, if current trends continue, marijuana might become more prevalent among fatally injured drivers.”
Trauma can have a profound impact on every area of person’s life. Because studies have shown that traumatic experiences, for example, physical and sexual abuse, are so common, it is important for people to be familiar with the different ways that trauma can cause distress.
We are legislated to buy the product of private insurers. We are without a choice and virtually without consumer protection.
Doctors are taking in millions of dollars a year by putting their names to accident injury reports for the insurance industry. Some of these reports unfairly discredit injury claims, leaving victims intimidated and exhausted. But because the majority settle out of court, the practice is hidden from public scrutiny. Kathy Tomlinson investigates
The decision is one of the most striking in a string of cases where adjudicators questioned the objectivity of health professionals testifying about accident victims
The decision Sopher v. Primmum Arbitration Decision
More info on the assessor Lawson, Kerry, Psychologist
Campisi Charter Challenge Appeal Oct 2017
52. The legislative effects, in these circumstances, prohibit access to fundamental health care, cause ongoing serious psychological impairments, and are caused by a delay imposed by the legislation and its implementation. As such, the case is analogous to Chaoulli.
53. In summary, it is respectfully submitted that s. 267.5(1) of the Insurance Act violates s. 7 of the Charter by:
a. threatening the security of person by causing ongoing physical and psychological harm and by impeding recovery from physical and psychological damage from the accident, and
b. violating the principles of fundamental justice due to arbitrariness insofar as it is inconsistent with the objectives of the legislative scheme, overbroad by including individuals who are highly motivated to settle as quickly as possible, and grossly disproportionate as it punishes those who cannot work to a greater extent than any other group for delays in litigation.
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html
FAIR response to Fair Benefits, Fairly Delivered September 15 2017
The public and the government know little to nothing about insurer profits and what they do with our premium dollars. This is very much a concern when it comes to the quality of coverage. We only know what insurers tell us about their finances and there’s no transparency and so no ability to find out. That’s a big gap in knowledge when making decisions about coverage that will affect the treatment of tens of thousands of Ontario’s traumatically injured patients every year.
If the goal is for the “government to provide a guaranteed safety net for those injured in auto accidents” then why are we using the insurer model and not our own patient model? If recovery is the driver behind the proposed changes then the perspective must change too. Accident victims must be seen and treated as the patients they are, the traumatically injured whose lives are turned upside down by a sudden and unexpected event.
The insurers and their legal representatives are obviously unafraid of any consequences when they parade the partisan ‘expert’ in front of the court. The experts themselves have no fear since they are self-regulated at their Colleges and are rarely sanctioned in any meaningful way when they harm innocent accident victims. It’s clear to victims that it is only they who are expected to be truthful in their duty to the court while the behavior of the insurer ‘hired gun’ medical expert is given the free pass to cause harm over and over again.
What will you do to restore confidence in our justice system when the proliferation of “hired gun” experts tainting cases continues to worsen despite the Form 53.03 promise to be impartial? Will the Committee help judges improve their gatekeeping of experts by setting out the appropriate time to allow lawyers to challenge medico-legal experts with prior judicial warnings of bias and unacceptable testimony?
Shouldn’t the Committee correct the belief that seeking to adduce prior judicial rebukes for bias is a waste of the court’s time and establish that this is something that deserves punishment in the form of costs and make an effort to block the future testimony of the unacceptable expert? Not doing so has made the Ontario Civil Justice system a place where juries are misled and an unsafe place for vulnerable litigants while it has become a reliable and very profitable adventure for insurers and their medical experts.
The Personal Insurance Co. Privacy Breach Class Action
This proposed breach of privacy class action is brought in Federal Court on behalf of all persons resident in Canada who made insurance claims under their automobile insurance policies with The Personal Insurance Company between January 18, 2012 and February 8, 2018, and who had their credit score information accessed by The Personal or its agents. http://waddellphillips.ca/clas
FAIR response to Brian Mills June 6 2017 re use of credit reports in claims
Letter from FSCO regarding PIPEDA and use of credit reports in injury claims
FAIR letter to Brian Mills April 28 2017 re use of credit reports in claims
From the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (PIPEDA) http://www.fairassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Letter-from-Office-of-Privacy-Commissioner-of-Canada-re-use-of-credit-information-in-auto-insurance-claims.pdf
What the federal privacy watchdog did after an insurer pried into crash victim’s credit rating/National Post http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/insurer-violated-crash-victims-rights-by-accessing-his-credit-score-federal-watchdog-rules
Calgary interview on 770 Newstalk with Rhona DesRoches about use of personal information and credit reports in claims adjusting to air on Monday, March 3, 2017 http://www.newstalk770.com/
Breach of Privacy: “Psychological Battery” and ‘intrusion upon seclusion’ http://www.litigate.com/breach-of-privacy-psychological-battery