Author Archives: Admin2

Starting off the License Appeal Tribunal for MVA victims – already slanted to favor auto insurers?

The LAT update says “The Advisory Committee members represent groups that have an interest in the areas of law, business, government, consumer groups and the insurance industry” but the reality is that the Committee is composed of insurer defence lawyers and legal experts and consultants without any presence of consumers or MVA victims or those who represent them. This is unacceptable when such uneven and unfair weighting of the Committee appears to favour Ontario’s insurance industry while totally ignoring Ontario’s consumers and MVA victims.  http://www.slasto.gov.on.ca/en/Documents/What%20New-EN/AIDRS%20Project%20Update%20-%20FSCO%20Forums%20-%20EN.pdf

FAIR letter to the Attorney General re LAT advisory panel Sept 30 2015

Auto Insurance Dispute Resolution System (AIDRS) Project Update

Transfer of Automobile Insurance Dispute Resolution System The Government announced in the 2014 Budget a series of auto insurance reforms, one of which was the transformation of the Auto Insurance Dispute Resolution System and its transfer to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), an adjudicative tribunal within the Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario (SLASTO) cluster. In the 2015 Budget, the Government announced the new Auto Insurance Dispute Resolution System at LAT will begin accepting applications on April 1, 2016.

http://www.slasto.gov.on.ca/en/Documents/What%20New-EN/AIDRS%20Project%20Update%20-%20FSCO%20Forums%20-%20EN.pdf

Common Traffic Impairments (CTI) – what do stakeholders think about the latest plan for auto insurance coverage levels

The Plan   FINAL DRAFT AUG CTI GUIDELINE

FAIR response to the Draft Superindendent’s Common Traffic Impairment (CTI) Guideline Sept 11 2015

OTLA RESPONSE TO THE CTI

ABC CTI submission

ORA Response to Draft Superintendent’s CTI Guideline (1)

OPA Sept 11 2015 Submission re CTI Guideline Sept 11, 2015 SENT

Rehab First Submission-Superintendent’s CTI Implementation Proposal September 2015

New Ontario auto catastrophic impairment definition starts in 2016

The new definition of catastrophic impairment, in Ontario’s standard accident benefits schedule (SABS), “includes new and/or updated definitions and criteria for traumatic brain injuries for adults and children, amputations, ambulatory mobility, loss of vision, and mental and behavioral impairments, and introduces a new process for combining physical with mental and behavioral impairments,” FSCO said in a bulletin Tuesday.

http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/new-ontario-auto-catastrophic-impairment-definition-starts-in-2016/1003787075/

Insurance Rates on the Rise as Coverage Declines

The government promised to reduce automobile insurance rates in Ontario by 15% in the 2013 budget. It has been two years, and Ontarians are not seeing anything close to a 15% rate reduction in their insurance premiums. What we are seeing are significant and continuous cutbacks to insurance coverage, without any real changes from the insurance industry.

http://oatleyvigmond.com/insurance-rates-on-the-rise-as-coverage-declines/#.VeijMH1qS1A

17 surgeries later, Barrie woman sues drunk driver, bar

TORONTO – Mallorie Wild says she’s still haunted by what she remembers of the morning a drunk driver ran her over.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/02/woman-sues-drunk-driver-bar

Drew Hasselback: Your ad here … or not

LSUC is not proposing a change to the rule itself that allows Ontario lawyers to advertise. Rather, the law society is contemplating a couple of changes to the rulebook text that provides some detail on what types of marketing practices might violate the rule. LSUC has invited lawyers to comment on those changes until Oct. 15.

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com//legal-post/drew-hasselback-your-ad-here-or-not

Tips on completing the Application for Accident Benefits OCF-1 and other OCF Claim Forms (Ontario)

Ask 10 drivers how their no fault accident benefits work, or how no fault car insurance works, you’ll get 10 different answers. All of them will likely be wrong. Ask 10 lawyers who don’t practice in the field of persona injury law, you’ll probably get the same wrong answers! Even funnier is if you ask 10 different politicians, the ones who actually passed the laws to create no fault accident benefit insurance in Ontario, and they won’t know either.

http://www.torontoinjurylawyerblog.com/2015/09/tips-on-completing-the-application-for-accident-benefits-ocf-1-and-other-ocf-claim-forms-ontario.html#more-790

Pain Clinic Treatment a “Mandatory” Item Under ICBC’s Part 7 Benefits

In today’s case (Park v. Targonski) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages.  At trial future care costs were awarded including $8,500 for treatments from a pain clinic.  The Defenant argued that these damages should be deducted as ICBC must cover the cost under the Plaintiff’s no fault beneifts.

http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/pain-clinics-mandatory-icbcs-part-7-benefits?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IcbcLaw+%28ICBC+Law%29

A2J: Solving the unaffordable legal services problem by changing law society management structure

“Why can’t I have an affordable lawyer of my own? I pay for the justice system where you lawyers earn a very good living compared to me. But I must use the second-best solutions of clinics, and pro bono and targeted legal services, and various forms of self-help. You say you take this ‘access to justice’ problem very seriously. I don’t believe that. If you were serious and ethical, you would be trying to solve the problem. You can’t show me anything that you have done about trying to solve the problem. I can’t have an affordable lawyer of my own because you use your monopoly over legal services to serve yourselves, but not the needs of the public for legal services. Why should I give my respect and tax money to your justice system?”