• FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

Latest News Articles

FAIR does not accept responsibility for comments, opinions, statistical information etc. associated with the links listed below. Any opinions, points of view, etc. are not necessarily shared by FAIR.

For a complete list of recent articles, please go to our 'Media Articles' page under 'In the News'.
We are updating our site and we appreciate your patience.

Sivananthan and Coachman

https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/5417

Decision Date: 2017-11-17, Adjudicator: David Snider, Regulation: 34/10, Decision: Arbitration, Final Decision, FSCO 5417

Ms. Sivananthan has successfully demonstrated, and I find as a fact, that Coachman failed, on a consistent and repeated basis, to follow the requirements of the Schedule while adjusting each and all of the Applicant’s claims for Income Replacement Benefits, Non-Earner Benefits, and Medical and Rehabilitation Benefits concerning each of the two dates of loss which form the basis of this Application for Arbitration.

 

The question I must answer is whether I find that Coachman has unreasonably withheld or delayed payments with regard to the Applicant’s claims.  The failures to pay started with the original eligibility for Income Replacement Benefits, which the Insurer never made any effort to determine because it bogged itself down in the quantum calculations and refused, unreasonably in my opinion, to use the available, sufficient information to determine the appropriate weekly amount payable.  The fact that Coachman still has not paid the first two treatment amounts set out by Gibson, starting with an OCF-23, even though they steadfastly maintained the position that Ms. Sivananthan’s injuries were minor and that they fell within the MIG.  This is prima facie unreasonable and there can be no excuse for it.  Failure to properly set up assessments pertaining to all of the other treatment plans, and relying upon an insufficient paper review with regard to the only actual assessment plan submitted was also patently unreasonable, in my opinion.  The other most egregious unreasonable behaviour by the adjuster was the complete refusal, based upon reasons unknown to the Schedule, to reschedule the one assessment date that Ms. Sivananthan notified them that she was too ill to attend.  And, finally, the Insurer failed to properly respond to Ms. Sivananthan’s application for Non-Earner Benefits when they did not deliver an Election Form to her concerning the second date of loss – which is entirely illogical and inappropriate under the provisions of the Schedule because the Applicant had submitted an OCF-3 which indicated that she met the medical eligibility test for NEBs.

 

I find, therefore, that Coachman unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to Ms. Sivananthan. Accordingly, I order Coachman to pay a special award of 50 per cent of the amount to which Ms. Sivananthan was entitled at the time of each of the benefits I have found to be due and payable in this Order, together with interest on all amounts then owing to the insured (including unpaid interest) at the rate of 2 per cent per month, compounded monthly, from the time the benefits first became payable under the Schedule.

The problems with the License Appeals Tribunal (LAT) for accident benefit cases (Ontario)

If you’ve been hurt or injured in a car accident, you are entitled to accident benefits from your own car insurer. These accident benefits are NOT damages for pain and suffering; nor are they compensation intended to make you whole for your attendant care, income loss, housekeeping claim, or loss of guidance, care and companionship with immediate family members.

https://www.torontoinjurylawyerblog.com/2017/11/problems-license-appeals-tribunal-lat-accident-benefit-cases-ontario.html?utm_content=bufferb7086&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Marni Soupcoff: Law society’s advertising restrictions rooted in elitist mentality

The Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) is alleging that Toronto personal injury lawyer Brian Goldfinger has committed misconduct because he “refers to himself as the lawyer with the golden touch” in advertisements for his services, among other marketing transgressions.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/marni-soupcoff-law-societys-unnecessary-advertising-restrictions-rooted-in-elitist-mentality?utm_content=buffer2998f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#comments-area

Determining the Value of a Personal Injury Case

Personal injuries can be devastating, often financially, physically and emotionally impacting the victim as well his or her family. This is why personal injury cases allow victims to recover compensation for the damages they have suffered. However, these cases are difficult to put a price on, and many factors play a role in determining how much a case is worth.

https://www.gregmonforton.com/blog/personal-injury-case-compensation.html

Tort law surrounding mental injuries is evolving, thanks to the Supreme Court

To date, our society has tended to view mental illness as somewhat different from physical illness — and, by extension, mental injuries as not quite the same as physical ones. There has been a tendency to be more wary or skeptical of the former, viewing them as inherently subjective problems and/or personal failings. All of this ran parallel to a mind/body distinction that had developed historically in medical and popular thinking.

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/personalinjury/articles/5315/tort-law-surrounding-mental-injuries-is-evolving-thanks-to-the-supreme-court

‘Vulnerable’ clients charged up to 30% for tax credit as CRA drags heels

At first glance, it seemed to Cathy Publicover the advertisement on her Facebook feed publicizing a federal tax credit for disabled people was from a Canadian government agency.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/tax-disability-cra-national-benefit-authority-1.4422586

Proposed law would make broker discipline hearings public

The Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario (IBAO) told Canadian Underwriter Wednesday it has been “vocal” in its support of “increased transparency of Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario,” the professional body overseeing Ontario brokers.

https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/proposed-law-make-broker-discipline-hearings-public-1004124592/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Ontario’s courts to inch toward modern age with Wi-Fi, emailed jury summonses

TORONTO — Ontario’s antiquated court system will inch toward the modern age, as the attorney general announced Wi-Fi for courthouses, jury summons via email or text and some online divorce filings.

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/ontarios-courts-to-inch-toward-modern-age-with-wi-fi-emailed-jury-summonses

Provincial brokers urge “deep” review of government insurer

Insurance Brokers Association of B.C. (IBABC) and a provincial cabinet minister are calling for major changes to British Columbia’s money-losing government monopoly auto insurer. But it’s been four months since the release of a consultant’s report containing specific options and there is no word on whether potential product changes put forth by Ernst & Young will see the light of day.

https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/provincial-brokers-urge-deep-review-government-insurer-1004124589/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The Problem With Toronto’s Accessibility Permits

As a disabled person, navigating Toronto is stressful and dangerous — not just because of potholes and construction-brutalized sidewalks, but because of transit. And people. Especially people operating or riding transit. This is largely due to the absence of inclusion of pedestrians in the Ministry of Transportation’s Accessibility Permit Program, currently only issued for drivers/passengers of cars, which leaves the rest of us vulnerable to harassment and injury.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tara-k-reed/toronto-accessibility-permits_b_11434946.html