Research shows that most people complain once a minute during a typical conversation. Complaining is tempting because it feels good, but like many other things that are enjoyable — such as smoking or eating a pound of bacon for breakfast — complaining isn’t good for you.
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.
Global Medical Device Company, Sway Medical, Supports Canadian Concussion Education and Research
Concussion management continues to evolve globally with strong Canadian concussion research programs leading the way. The University of Calgary and Dr. Katherine Schneider bring a global presence while representing current data. Held three weeks ago in Berlin, Germany, the 5th International Consensus Conference on Concussion in Sport recently involved their program’s research. Their local presence at the SPC conference in Toronto exemplifies how Canadians are taking youth and adult concussion management seriously.
Ex-big pharma executive behind OxyContin sells medical marijuana
John Stewart used to run the pharmaceutical company behind the narcotic painkiller OxyContin. Now he is banking on medical marijuana.
Mr Stewart does not know which is more controversial these days, OxyContin or pot.
Lengyel v. TD Home and Auto Insurance, 2016 ONSC 6888 (CanLII)
[3] This action arises as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 3, 2011 in which the plaintiff alleges to have sustained serious and permanent injuries. This action was commenced by notice of action on November 1, 2013 in which the plaintiff claims for payment of accident benefits arising out of the subject accident from the defendant, TD Home and Auto Insurance (“TD”), her accident benefits insurer. The plaintiff was self-represented when she commenced this action. TD filed its statement of defence on March 25, 2014 and denied that the plaintiff was entitled to any accident benefits.
[16] Firstly, Howie, Sacks & Henry did not follow the proper procedure for appointing a litigation guardian under Rule 7.03(6) by serving Form 7A prior to bringing this motion.
[17] Secondly, the plaintiff was taken by surprise when she received the motion material having not been served with Form 7A. The fact that Howie, Sacks & Henry served Form 7A and the motion in reverse order, in my view, has put the plaintiff in a disadvantageous position because had the plaintiff been served with Form 7A first, she would have had earlier notice that the law firm was seeking to have a litigation guardian appointed prior to the motion such that she would have had more time to decide how she would respond, whether that would have involved seeking legal advice or obtaining relevant documents. Fairness requires that the plaintiff be entitled to proper notice under the Rules and, in my view, she did not receive proper notice.
Insured’s claim that he was deprived of his mother’s care, guidance, and companionship due to insurer’s mishandling of claim was allowed to proceed
Action against insurer based on alleged mishandling of insured’s mother’s accident benefit claim allowed to proceed as not plain and obvious it was certain to fail.
http://www.lexology.com/
Watkins v Western Assurance Company, 2016 ONSC 2574 (CanLII)
2. THE DERIVATIVE CLAIM
[42] The 2011 derivative claim alleges that, as a result of Stuckless’ claim for statutory accident benefits being denied, Watkins was deprived of his mother’s care, guidance and companionship, which ultimately led to Watkins’ inability to acquire a post-secondary degree, achieve his pre-accident goals, maintain relationships and integrate into society. The derivative claim seeks two types of damages:
a) Damages for wrongful infliction of mental distress upon Watkins by the use of unlawful claims practices; bad faith for unreasonable conduct in the claims process; and aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages.
b) In the alternative, Watkins claims pecuniary damages under the Family Law Act for loss of earning capacity and loss of income for Western’s negligent administration of accident benefits to Stuckless.
(b) Bad Faith, Negligence and Family Law Act Claims
[57] Watkins pleads that Western negligently or maliciously denied benefits to the mother, and that this caused the mother’s psychiatric illness, which in turn caused Watkins to lose his mother’s care and guidance. Western could owe Watkins a duty of care not to cause harm, if their relationship was sufficiently proximate; if the harm was foreseeable; and if there are no residual policy reasons negating the duty of care: Cooper v. Hobart, 2001 SCC 79 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 537.
[58] I have concerns about whether harm to Watkins was foreseeable and whether the relationship of the parties was sufficiently proximate. I also have concerns that there are residual policy reasons for negating a duty of care.
[59] The relationship between insured and insurer is contractual in nature: 702535 Ontario Inc. v. Non-Marine Underwriters, 2000 CanLII 5684 (ON CA), [2000] O.J. No. 866 (C.A.). There is arguable policy reason to negate the claims in tort and under the Family Law Act.
[60] The legislature considers it a matter of public policy to define and limit the liability of automobile insurers. Restricting the insured to whatever remedy the statute and contract permit may be better public policy. Arguably, the Insurance Act itself precludes liability in tort by exhaustively listing the remedies that an insured person may pursue. The same arguments would apply to the Family Law Act claim.
[61] Despite my concerns regarding the strength of the non-contractual damages sought, the same evidence will be heard at trial on both contractual and non-contractual issues. It would not prejudice anyone for these matters to proceed together, so that these points of law can be determined after a full record has been created.
IV. CONCLUSION
[62] In the result, the motion for summary judgment is granted and the accident benefits claim (action 12-38604) is summarily dismissed in its entirety.
[63] It is not plain and obvious that the derivative claim (action 11-25909) is certain to fail. The motion to strike the derivative claim is dismissed.
What happens if I’m hurt on public transit?
Accidents involving public transportation vehicles pose unique legal challenges, often leaving injured individuals unsure of their options. It is important to speak to an experienced personal injury lawyer as soon as possible after an incident to discuss these options.
Lawyer warns of privacy breach damages to victims who are a ‘little bit annoyed’
The rise of class action lawsuits alleging privacy breaches is raising the question of whether a corporation can be held vicariously liable when employees cause privacy violations to plaintiffs who do not actually prove they were harmed, a lawyer warned insurance professionals Wednesday.
Doctors’ Notes: How occupational therapists can help with transition from hospital to home
Leaving the hospital can be extremely complicated if you have had a serious health condition or injury. How do you get back to everyday routines, especially if your body and mind aren’t able to do what they did so easily before? How do you identify and find the support you need, but also maintain your independence where possible?