Prior to trial, the Plaintiff brought a motion to exclude potential jurors who drive and pay insurance premiums, or have automobile insurance premiums pain on their behalf, on the basis that these jurors have an inherent conflict of interest. The argument is premised on the fact that jurors who pay insurance premiums are adverse to the Plaintiff due to their financial obligations to the insurer, creating an unfair bias. In the alternative, the Plaintiff sought an order permitting them to challenge potential jurors who pay automobile insurance premiums, or have premiums paid on their behalf, due to this alleged inherent bias.
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.
Tighter restrictions on referral fees welcome: Marshall
TORONTO — Lawyers in Ontario should have their fees for referring clients to another lawyer capped at a maximum of $25,000, a report released on Monday recommends.
In addition, the report says lawyers should have to record referral fees paid or received in their books, and report on their referral-fee practices in their annual reports to the body that regulates the profession in the province.
G-d help you if you get injured in a car accident (Ontario)
The law in Ontario is, for lack of a better term, TERRIBLE for innocent accident victims. I have no other way of describing it.
Here are some tidbits of information, which are used against innocent accident victims everyday in car accident cases in Ontario
https://www.torontoinjurylawye
Challenges in personal injury law weeding out smaller firms
Challenges in the field of personal injury law are making it increasingly difficult for smaller firms to take on cases, leaving more injured people unrepresented, says Toronto personal injury lawyer Elinor Shinehoft.
Applicant has ongoing limitations but still falls in the MIG
A.W. was a pedestrian hit by a car. The car accident occurred February 21, 2015. A.W. sought benefits pursuant to the SABS. He applied for non-earner benefits (NEBs) and funding for treatment, including physiotherapy. These benefits were denied by Allstate, who took the position that A.W. did not meet the test for non-earner benefits. Treatment was denied by Allstate on the basis that A.W. ’s injuries were minor and that he had exhausted the $3500 available for treatment for minor injuries. A.W. applied to the LAT regarding his entitlement to these benefits.
Speaker’s Corner: Time for courts to go paperless
Much ink has been spilled, so to speak, on the Ontario courts’ failure to move into the digital age. Despite this frequent criticism, the problem persists without a solution in sight.
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/20
File a civil claim online
We’re piloting a new online service for lawyers to help their clients file a civil claim more quickly.
During this pilot, you can file a civil claim online in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
https://www.ontario.ca/page/fi
Ontario traps those with disabilities in lives of poverty
In August 2016, Ontario’s ombudsman released Nowhere to Turn, which outlined multiple systemic failures in provincial supports and services that lead to crisis for many adults with developmental disabilities. The stories illustrated in the report are often heartbreaking and speak to the many ways that the system leaves people with disabilities vulnerable and trapped in poverty.
Auto insurance becomes hot topic in BC’s political debate
The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) has been thrust into the spotlight ahead of the B.C. provincial election on May 09.
Between the looming threat of ICBC’s rates being jacked up by, in a worst-case scenario, 42% by 2020, and an NDP policy vowing to freeze the public auto insurer’s premiums, the issue has become a focal point of political debate.
Kapoor v Kuzmanovski, 2017 ONSC 1709 (CanLII)
[3] At the heart of the plaintiff’s motion is the assertion that prospective jurors in civil motor vehicle accident cases, who drive motor vehicles and are insured under the Ontario provincial motor vehicle insurance legislation, are inherently in a conflict of interest as they have a personal interest at stake adverse to a plaintiff and as such cannot carry out their duties as jurors in an impartial manner. The alleged personal interest giving rise to the conflict of interest is each prospective juror’s financial obligation to pay motor vehicle liability insurance premiums.