__________________________________________________________________
15 Things Only A Crash Survivor Can Tell You
__________________________________________________________________
Canadian insurance industry still at risk from mega-catastrophe, study warns
The federal government needs to take action to shore up Canada’s insurance industry against systemic risks that could leave the sector vulnerable to collapse in the event of a mega-catastrophe, says the co-author of the latest research into potential fallout from major disasters such as earthquakes.
______________________________________________________________
Man shocked he had to pay OHIP for hospital stay after winning lawsuit
An Oakville, Ont. man, who won a lawsuit for a slip-and-fall accident, says he is shocked that he had to pay $55,000 for his lengthy hospital stay.
_______________________________________________________________
Ontario man suing prison guard after alleged assault caught on camera in prison parking lot
Paul Saliba believes he would have been charged for assaulting a corrections officer after an incident in a prison parking lot in 2017 if it weren’t for security footage of the incident that shows he never touched the prison guard.
_______________________________________________________________
Nearly a year after legalization, many police forces slow to use new THC blood charges for impaired driving
OTTAWA — New and controversial criminal charges that allow police to charge drivers based on THC levels in the blood are off to a slow start in most parts of the country, provincial data shows.
________________________________________________________________
Determined Catastrophic but denied future benefits
[1] This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant, [the applicant]. It arises out of a decision in which I found [the applicant] catastrophically impaired[1] on the basis that he sustained a marked impairment under the mental and behavioural category of the Guides.[2] I determined that [the applicant] was not entitled to post-104 income replacement benefits, or to attendant care, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits. While I did find [the applicant] entitled to a pre-104 income replacement benefit, I found it was offset by TD’s claim for repayment and therefore not payable. A number of medical and rehabilitation benefits were also the subject of the 10-day in-person hearing, however the parties were able to settle these issues prior to the release of the decision.
[2] Despite my finding that he sustained a catastrophic impairment because of the accident, [the applicant] submits that I made significant errors of law and fact that directly affect the outcome of the decision. First, [the applicant] submits that I erred in not awarding post-104-week income replacement benefits. Second, he submits that it was an error to deny him attendant care benefits and to deem them not incurred. Third, he argues that it was an error to deny the housekeeping and home maintenance benefit. Fourth, [the applicant] argues that it was an error to find no basis for an award under s.10 of O. Reg. 664 enacted under the Insurance Act.
[3] [The applicant] requests the Tribunal reverse my decision on the denied benefits and award all the benefits outlined above. Pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter.
RESULT
[4] [The applicant]’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
[5] The grounds for a Request for Reconsideration are contained in Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision;
c) The Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or
d) There is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.
