At last count, the WSIB Appeal Tribunal has in excess of 8,000 cases awaiting appeal from claims denied by the WSIB. Why? Because after years of “low ball” employer premiums to the compensation system, a huge unfunded liability became a government/employer concern. Their solution, deny worker claims rather than impose premiums equal to the injuries and fatalities suffered in Ontario’s workplaces. In effect, the decades old agreement whereby workers gave up the right sue in exchange for a fair Compensation system has been set aside by their action. Workers can no longer sue, but fair compensation has been removed from the system.
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.
Doctor’s sex abuse acquittal highlights ‘problematic’ Ontario law
When health professionals in Ontario are found guilty by their regulatory body of professional misconduct or incompetence, they are named in the decision and the information about their case remains on their profile, but there is no such requirement under the law when they are cleared of allegations.
Two ODSP recipients frustrated
The pair are long-time clients of the Ontario Disability Support Program, although Sally receives most of her funds through the Canada Pension Plan.
Up until now, Joy and Sally said they have survived on scant benefit increases.
http://www.standard-freeholder
Why telematics are potentially the next big thing for auto insurance
Telematics devices have enjoyed an upwards arc trajectory and are becoming increasingly popular in the auto insuranceindustry. This technology allows insurers to give customers usage-based insurance (UBI) coverage. Telematics monitor driving habits and vehicle use, meaning customers only pay for what they use and get discounts for good driving practices.
TBI Recovery, Better Sleep-Wake Cycle May Go Hand-in-Hand
People who sustain a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) often experience significant changes in their sleep-wake cycle. A new study shows that consciousness and thinking abilities in TBI patients tend to return hand-in-hand with a healthier sleep-wake cycle.
Canadian-made blood test for concussions could radically simplify diagnosis
Medical researchers in London, Ont. say they have developed a simple blood test that can detect if someone has suffered a concussion with more than 90 per cent accuracy – a finding that may eventually replace current tests that rely on patients to describe their own symptoms.
Concerned citizen writes to Ontario Civil Rules Committee regarding IMEs and prior adverse comments
Sent to: Ms. Alison Warner, Senior Legal Officer and Secretary to the Civil Justice Rules Committee
Court of Appeal for Ontario
130 Queen Street West, Toronto ON, M5H 2N5
“There is a long-standing expectation in both criminal and civil law that an expert’s duty is not to interested parties but to the court. Expert testimony and evidence is expected to be both truthful and to be proffered by someone possessed of sufficient skill, training and knowledge as to be qualified to give opinion evidence on a matter that is relevant to the issues before the court. This underlying expectation has been made explicit in the 2010 changes to Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure.
I will argue that these changes, together with pre-existing safeguards, are inadequate given that the provision of expert evidence has become a growth industry. The competition in this industry is intense and incentives to be less than truthful often overtake professional obligations and standards. It is not enough to expect someone with vested interests to be truthful about their willingness to be truthful. In addition to these changes, then, the courts must listen to what prior triers of fact have to say about the quality of experts that have made submissions to them.”
“After due consideration of your proposal, the Civil Rules Committee has decided not to amend the Rules with respect to expert witnesses. The Committee’s role is to consider whether a change to the Rules of Civil Procedure would assist in redressing the problems referred to in your letters. After careful consideration of the issue, the Committee has concluded that a change to the Rules of Civil procedure is not well-suited to achieving the desired ends identified in your letters.
The existing Rules establish that the duty of an expert is to the court and not to the parties: see rule 4.1.01. Form 53 (Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty) requires any expert to sign an acknowledgement of the matters set out in rule 4.1.01. It is clearly good practice for counsel to assess their own expert witness in the light of any adverse judicial comments about a particular expert, and to seek to introduce any prior adverse judicial comments about an opposing expert witness. A judge has the authority to disqualify an expert, to limit the scope of the expert’s evidence, or to refuse to admit any evidence that is found to be impartial.”
January 13 2017 consumer response to Senior Legal Officer and Secretary for the Rules Committee
In its reply to me I had hoped the Rules Committee would have addressed the substance of my concern, that is, making revisions to the rules that would make “good practice” more likely to occur. Your dismissive reply to my letter suggests an indifference to the expert witness nightmare, and a willingness to protect “hired guns”.
Expert Witness Immunity: No, You Cannot Sue Your Own Expert For Negligence!
The absolute immunity of parties and witnesses from subsequent liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings developed in early English cases and is well established at common law. Any communication, even perjured testimony, made in the course of a judicial proceeding, cannot serve as the basis for a suit in tort. The rationale for witness immunity, which has become less an evidentiary rule than a rule of substantive law, is that the proper administration of justice requires full and free disclosure from witnesses unhampered by fear of retaliatory lawsuits.
FSCO issues warning over spam email appearing to come from the regulator
The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) has issued a warning about a spam email using the fsco.gov.on.ca domain name and email address richard@fsco.gov.on.ca
http://www.canadianunderwriter
Ottawa city bus driver had ‘elevated standard of care’ in fatal collision: Court
The City of Ottawa and an OC Transpo bus driver have lost their appeal of a ruling that the bus driver was 20% liable, for a fatal collision, with a vehicle driven by an alcohol-impaired driver who ran a red light.