Latest News Articles

WHITBY, Ont. – Police have laid another sexual assault charge against a massage therapist from Whitby, Ont.

http://www.advocatedaily.com/none-another-sex-assault-charge-laid-against-massage-therapist-in-whitby-ont-.html

We’re launching a pilot project to study how giving people a basic income might reduce poverty and improve health, housing and employment outcomes in Ontario.

Complete the survey below by January 31, 2017 and help us explore new ways to deliver income support across the province.

https://www.ontario.ca/form/basic-income-pilot-public-survey

https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/5118

Aviva submitted that due to the amendments to the Insurance Act and its associated Regulation effective April 1, 2016, only appeals or applications for variation/revocation can be commenced on or after that transition date. It submitted that, since adding an issue to a proceeding is the same as commencing a proceeding, and new arbitration proceedings are prohibited, the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to add those issues.

The Arbitrator nonetheless held he had jurisdiction to add issues to a proceeding “where it would be fair/efficient to do so” and that “Adding issues to an existing proceeding is different from commencing a proceeding, which is the prohibition.” He therefore added the new issues to the arbitration proceeding.

However, the limitation section in the pre-transition date Act uses the same terminology of commencing a proceeding as in the Regulation, and case law has held that no new issues can be added to an arbitration after the running of that limitation period. It follows that no new issues can be added to an arbitration proceeding on or after the transition date. The exception is for those issues that necessarily arise from the issues already in dispute, such as in claims for ongoing benefits. The catastrophic impairment claim could therefore be added, as it necessarily arose from the ongoing claims (past 104 weeks) for attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

[]

I agree that while it may have been likely that the Mediation would fail, it was not necessarily the case that it would fail, or that a Mediator would be of that opinion as of March 29, 2016. Likelihood or expectation alone is insufficient to meet the requirement for failed Mediation, deemed or otherwise.

For all of these reasons, I find that the statutory conditions precedent to an Application for Arbitration in effect at the relevant time were not met by Mr. Mussa when this Application for Arbitration was commenced, and thus there is no jurisdiction to proceed with the Arbitration.

https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/5114

Mr. Finley also argued that other factors should be taken into account, namely the balance of convenience, because Hearing dates were already set at the Pre-Hearing when this Preliminary Issue Hearing was initiated. He suggested that the greater experience of FSCO Arbitrators over LAT Arbitrators, particularly with respect to complex disputes such as determination of catastrophic impairment, supported Mr. Mussa’s choice of the FSCO forum. He also stated that the Applicant’s preference for a decision bound by precedent and the potential for prejudice if the Applicant is required to have overlapping proceedings in two separate forums, warranted the choice of FSCO over LAT.

With respect, I do not agree that these factors are relevant in the question before me.

The Hearing dates have been set far enough in advance that there can be no argument for convenience this early in the process if those dates have to be changed. Due to the expedited timelines under the LAT process, Mr. Mussa might have a Hearing sooner if his dispute proceeds under LAT. I have no evidence that the relative expertise of Arbitrators in the forums is germane to the issue. Being bound by “precedent” also does not speak to his entitlement regarding either forum. Such entitlement flows from law, not from preference.

This is not a case of whether an issue should be added to an existing Application for Arbitration, which might possibly allow procedural fairness matters to be taken into account. This is a question of whether there is the right to initiate an Application for Arbitration under the old system, but without the statutory pre-conditions having been met, as a way to circumvent the unknowns of a new system that came into effect on April 1, 2016. The legislation did not provide a choice for new applications to be started in either the old or new systems, depending on preference or risk analysis of the system.

The only question is whether or not the necessary pre-conditions for Arbitration were met as of March 29, 2016 (the date of the Application for Arbitration).

In my view, they were not. The Act was clear on its face that a failed Mediation (deemed or otherwise) must exist before an Application for Arbitration could be filed.

[]

Therefore, I find that the Arbitrator spoke too broadly when he said that adding issues to an arbitration is different from commencing a proceeding. If the issue sought to be added does not necessarily arise from the issues already in dispute, then adding it is equivalent to commencing a proceeding. That is the problem with the issue of the treatment plan the Arbitrator added to the arbitration proceeding. It is a separate claim, unlike the claim for a catastrophic impairment designation where claims for ongoing benefits already exist. Beyond that, the treatment plan had been refused after the transition date, as noted above regarding the letter from Ms. Duong to ADR Chambers. Thus, the refusal of this claimed treatment plan occurred both after the Application for Mediation was filed and after the transition date of April 1, 2016.

In those circumstances, I fail to see how the issue of the treatment plan could be added to the arbitration proceeding.

The question that the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC), the insurance industry lobby group, has put to Professor Hutchinson of York University about whether contingency fee arrangements are a better deal for lawyers, particularly personal injury (pi) lawyers, than their clients is the wrong question. The right question is “Why do auto accident victims, whose lives have been irreparably changed for the worse, have to fight an insurance battle which necessitates the need for a lawyer?”

http://deniedbenefitclaims.com/blog.html

The way the law has developed in Ontario has given ‘special status’ to drivers, which is being reflected in the sentencing and outcomes of cases where pedestrians and cyclists are killed by those behind the wheel, Toronto critical injury lawyer Patrick Brown tells CBC Radio’s Ontario Today.

http://www.advocatedaily.com/patrick-brown-vulnerable-road-user-laws-could-encourage-driver-deterrence.html?utm_content=bufferd2adc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

In September 2015, Marco Muzzo landed at Toronto Pearson International Airport returning from his bachelor party in Miami. He was drunk and he didn’t have his glasses, but that didn’t stop him from getting behind the wheel of his Jeep.

http://inquinte.ca/story/letter-of-the-law-time-to-change-law-limiting-punitive-damages

When medical malpractice lawyer Amani Oakley appeared in a Toronto courtroom last October to get a trial date for her client, who is suing her chiropractor, the response she got “was like a blow to the stomach.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/01/23/ontario-lawyers-warn-civil-court-delays-a-worsening-disaster.html