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
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.
In September of 2010, the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) were amended with respect to Costs of Examinations. A cap of $2,000.00 was placed on each assessment completed, either for the insured or the insurer.
http://blog.smitiuchinjurylaw.
The National Post recently ran an article which highlighted a study financially backed by the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) called “A Study of the Costs of Legal Services in Personal Injury Litigation in Ontario“. In case you didn’t know, the IBC is the industry or lobby group which represents the interests of large insurance companies. They are the ones who donate to political parties and influence the way the laws are shaped such that they sway in favour of large, deep pocketed insurers, rather than in favour of innocent accident victims (aka the general public who pay auto insurance premiums).
http://www.
Researchers at the University of Western Ontario have published research in the Metabolics Journal showing a very promising blood test to identify whether someone has sustained a concussion. The researchers tested a series of blood samples, measuring 174 metabolites, molecules that are produced or involved in cell metabolism. Rather than trying to identify changes in individual metabolites, they looked at the picture as a whole
“We don’t think we should have to wait to consult on a pilot project, to do the pilot project, to evaluate the pilot project and then we’ll see a whole different government in place that will forget about it anyway.”
| http://canlii.ca/t/gx0m2 |
Ability to Cross Examine
The case is not on point here, where the Ontario legislature created concurrent schemes for adjudicating accident benefit claims at both FSCO and the LAT. Each scheme is separate and comprehensive and, in accordance with the transitional provisions of the Insurance Act, the legislature intended that the two tribunals operate concurrently for a short period while FSCO winds down its operations. During the transition period, each tribunal maintains the legitimacy and integrity of its own adjudicative processes.
Legislative intent
Aviva argues that, if the legislature had intended for FSCO to add issues after April 1, 2016, it would have so expressly legislated. However, that is not my understanding of the rules of statutory interpretation in consumer protection legislation. Rather, any limitations on the rights of insured persons must be made explicit.
It follows that only a clear and unambiguous statement in the statute that parties may not continue the practice of adding issues to FSCO arbitrations after April 1, 2016 can support an interpretation favourable to Aviva. Nowhere in the Insurance Act is there mention of the practice of adding issues to an arbitration. It is settled law that, where there is a doubt in legislation establishing and governing coverage and there are two possible interpretations of any aspect of coverage, the one more favourable to the insured should govern: July et al. v. Neal (1986).[9] The
Adding an issue to this arbitration is the fairest way of hearing it
Avoids duplication
To the extent that Mrs. Abbas seeks to consolidate her claims at FSCO by adding an issue to her arbitration, I am persuaded that she is justified in doing so. Adding the issue of non-earner benefits to the existing arbitration avoids unnecessary duplication of proceedings. Hearings are costly to the parties and, where possible, one hearing should be held, instead of multiple ones. It is cheaper for the parties, more convenient for the witnesses and makes better use of adjudicative resources.
While Aviva acknowledges that a multiplicity of proceedings should generally be avoided, it says that the issue of non-earner benefits is new, discrete and “in no way” connected or affected by the determination of issues currently in dispute. I reject that argument. To have the same parties bring the same evidence of the same injuries from the same accident to two different tribunals is indisputably a duplication of resources for the parties, witnesses, the tribunals and any reviewing bodies. There are issues of credibility, causation and disability common to both. To allow separate proceedings creates a risk of inconsistent findings and increases costs for the parties and the administration of justice.
[]
Conclusion
For these reasons, I am satisfied that I have the jurisdiction to add an issue to this arbitration and that to do so is the fairest way of proceeding.
I dismiss Aviva’s preliminary issue motion precluding Mrs. Abbas from adding an issue after April 1, 2016.
Aviva argues the opposite — that the April 2016 amendments created an expectation in the industry that issues may not be added to existing arbitrations. I give little weight to this argument. Aviva did not lead evidence or argue that there has been a regular and established practice at FSCO of prohibiting parties from adding issues after April 1, 2016. Moreover, the practice of adding issues was common at FSCO long before April 2016 and, as such, appears to me to be more established than any expectation that may have been created after the April 2016 amendments. As such, the expectation that the practice continue is more reasonable and legitimate, in my view, than any expectation to the contrary.
Supported by the SPPA
In addition, I agree with Mr. Al-Khunfusi that FSCO’s practice of adding issues is supported by its obligations to uphold procedural fairness under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.[6] Section 2 of the SPPA provides that the SPPA, and any rule made by a tribunal, shall be liberally construed so as to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every proceeding on its merits. The SPPA also grants a tribunal the power, under subsection 25.0.1, to determine its own procedures and practices and, for that purpose, permits tribunals to make orders with respect to the practices and procedures that apply in any particular proceeding.
Consequently, I reject Aviva’s assertion that FSCO would breach section 2 of the SPPA by adding issues to arbitrations. This argument delegitimizes FSCO’s processes and procedures. If Aviva were correct, then FSCO would have been in breach of the SPPA for years.
Ontario’s health privacy legislation, the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA), establishes a set of rules regarding your personal health information (PHI).
https://www.ipc.on.ca/health/y
An Ontario law professor has conducted a study in which he concludes that contingency fee arrangements are a better deal for lawyers than their clients.