• 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.

Setting Aside a Jury’s Verdict – A Heavy Burden

“Author of his/her own misfortune” is a common defence in personal injury cases and in Hamilton v. Bluewater Recycling Association, the jury reached this determination when it found that the appellant/ plaintiff was 100% responsible for the injuries he sustained when his motorcycle collided with a recycling truck driven and owned by the respondents/defendants. Nevertheless, the plaintiff appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal in November 2016.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2624cf7d-b012-48c2-b9cf-d21130410063

Medpot user says she was wrongfully charged with DUI

Linda Birks was only a handful of kilometers away from her new home in Port Albert when she became caught in a thunderstorm and drove her car off the road, down a ditch and into a hydro pole.

http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/2016/11/30/medpot-user-says-she-was-wrongfully-charged-with-dui

A Change of Mind: New documentary explores the pervasiveness of brain injuries

According to the documentary, each year 165,000 Canadians suffer a traumatic brain injury. When they go undiagnosed, the consequences can lead to uncharacteristic behaviour and emotions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/a-change-of-mind-new-documentary-explores-the-pervasiveness-of-brain-injuries-1.3857055?platform=hootsuite

A valid notice of renewal or non renewal of policy is mandatory under Ontario’s compulsory automobile insurance

Appeal of a preliminary arbitration award which found the insurer’s policy expired at the end of the six month term and therefore was not in force at the time of the accident. The Court of Appeal found the insurer failed to give notice of renewal or non renewal as required by s.236(1) of the Insurance Act and pursuant to s.236(5), the insurance policy remained in force at the time of the accident.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d229c583-1575-4ff3-9159-47e1eadb30bf

Aviva Canada announces 15% auto insurance discount for drivers of vehicles with automatic emergency braking

The insurer said in a press release on Monday that the “industry first” discount will be available to all Aviva‐insured drivers and will be applied to their policy automatically upon purchase or renewal. The discount will not apply to coverage for damages incurred while not driving, such as theft or vandalism, and in general, the possibility of damages not reduced by an emergency braking system.

http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/aviva-canada-announces-15-auto-insurance-discount-drivers-vehicles-automatic-emergency-braking-1004104634/

Insurers need to be definitive: Goldfinger

In the article, Goldfinger, principal at Goldfinger Law, looks at the result in Richards v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada 2016 ONSC 5492 involving a plaintiff who brought the lawsuit arguing his long-term disability (LTD) claim should not have been terminated because it had passed within the limitation period.

http://www.advocatedaily.com/brian-goldfinger-insurers-need-to-be-definitive-goldfinger.html

Kitchener doctor faces penalty for professional misconduct

KITCHENER — A Kitchener anesthesiologist specializing in pain management faces a penalty hearing from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario after it found he committed an act of professional misconduct.

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6992045-kitchener-doctor-faces-penalty-for-professional-misconduct/

Economic Loss must be Shown for each Attendant Care Monthly Payment

It has long been unclear from the attendant care provisions in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS 2010) whether the “economic loss” component of the “incurred” definition need only be proven once to generate benefit entitlement or if it needs to be proven periodically as attendant care expense claims are submitted.
The recent FSCO decision of Arbitrator Mongeon in Keeping and Aviva Canada Inc. (FSCO A14-003770), dated October 31, 2016, sheds some light on this longstanding area of regulatory ambiguity.

Who’s going to pay the mental health bill?

As the stigma falls away from mental health in the workplace, employers and governments are facing a massive bill — and, surprise, it appears nobody is remotely interested in footing it.

http://www.cos-mag.com/psychological-safety/psychological-safety-columns/5393-whos-going-to-pay-the-mental-health-bill.html

$100,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic PTSD

In today’s case, (Harmati v. Williams) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2011 rear end collision that the Defendant accepted fault for.  She suffered PTSD and a generalized anxiety disorder following the crash and the Court accepted these conditions were caused by the collision.

http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/100000-nonpecuniary-assessment-chronic-ptsd?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IcbcLaw+%28ICBC+Law%29