Premier Kathleen Wynne says her privatization czar is only looking at ways to improve eHealth Ontario, not sell off the electronic health records 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.
BC Supreme Court Outlines Parameters of Lay Witness Evidence from Doctors
The line between opinion evidence and fact evidence when given by a physician is sometimes blurred. Today reasons for judgement were released by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing this and outlining the parameters of factual vs opinion evidence from treating physicians.
http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/
Applicant v Intact Insurance, 2016 CanLII 60729 (ON LAT)
- Decision:
- 25. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to award costs but only under Rule 19.1 where a party in a proceeding has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith.
- Order:
- 26. The Tribunal orders a second hearing by teleconference, to consider the following issues:
- Is the Applicant entitled to recover the costs pursuant to Rule 19.1 of the LAT Rules of Practice and Procedure?
- Did the Insurer unreasonably withhold or delay payments to the Applicant pursuant to section 10 of O. Reg. 664?
16-000045 v Aviva Canada, 2016 CanLII 60728 (ON LAT)
Overview
[1] The Applicant, A. P., was injured in a motor vehicle accident on March 19, 2015. She applied for and received benefits under theStatutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective after September 1, 2010 (the “Schedule”) including medical and Income Replacement Benefits (IRB).
[2] Aviva terminated her IRB on February 16, 2016 taking the position that she did not meet the test for entitlement. She disputes that termination and argues that she should be paid IRB from February 17 to May 3, 2016 when she started part-time work.
[3] Aviva also denied A. P.’s claim for medical benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment. The dispute over the medical benefit centres on the nature and extent of her injuries. A. P. submits that her injuries are extensive and that she is entitled to access a maximum of $50,000 of medical and rehabilitation benefits pursuant to s. 18(3) of the Schedule. Aviva takes the position that her injuries are predominately minor and that s. 18(1) caps medical and rehabilitation benefits at $3,500 for predominantly minor injuries. The $3,500 having been exhausted, Aviva takes the position that it has no further liability to A. P.. The resolution of this matter depends on the sufficiency of the medical evidence put forward by A. P. in support of her position.
[22] A. P. submits that I should accept Dr. Honsl’s determination over the determination of Aviva’s assessors. Aviva submits that Dr. Honsl simply ticked a box and has provided no further support for her methodology or conclusions. Aviva’s assessors, on the other hand, have provided a detailed report on both their methodology and their conclusions that is unchallenged by anything submitted by A. P.. I prefer Aviva’s submissions. The evidence currently before me overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that A. P. was able to perform the essential tasks of her employment by February 16, 2016 when the IRB payment was stopped.
Conclusion:
[23] In light of the foregoing, I find that:
- A. P. suffered predominantly minor injuries and there is no compelling evidence of a pre-existing medical condition that would prevent recovery beyond the $3,500 cap for medical and rehabilitation benefits, and
- A. P. is not entitled to the payment of IRB for the period from February 17, 2016 to May 3, 2016.
Jubenville v. O’brien, 2016 ONSC 6410 (CanLII)
- 2.The plaintiff retained the defendant lawyers to act on her behalf in advancing a tort claim and an accident benefits claim. The tort claim was started in February 2002 but was ultimately dismissed by Justice Rogin on a summary judgment motion on January 6, 2009. Justice Rogin found that the applicable limitation period for the tort claim expired one year after the accident in accordance with Tennessee law. The claim was out of time.
- 3.The plaintiff started this action on August 13, 2009. She is claiming that the defendants acted negligently in the handling of her claims. Discovery is complete. This action has been set down for trial. A pre-trial will take place on October 18, 2016, just three business days from today. The trial is on the long trial list and is set for 20 days beginning January 3, 2017.
- 4.Nearly 17 years has gone by since the plaintiff was injured. She has yet to have her day in court. The defendants now seek leave to amend their statement of defence. They want to add allegations regarding the state of the law at the time the tort statement of claim was issued in 2002 as part of their standard of care defence. They also seek to include allegations that the plaintiff missed the limitation period applicable to this negligence claim against her former lawyers.
Bonilla v. Preszler, 2016 ONCA 759 (CanLII)
[1] The motion judge granted summary judgment and dismissed the appellant’s action against the respondent insurer for terminating the Income Replacement Benefits (“IRB”) she had been receiving. The motion judge concluded that the appellant’s action was barred by the two-year limitation period established by the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. I.8 and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Accidents on or After November 1, 1996, O. Reg. 403/96.
[2] The respondent informed the appellant on February 4, 2003 that it would not pay the IRB after February 27, 2003. The appellant was represented by counsel at the time and did not challenge the decision to end the IRB. The appellant retained new counsel in 2007 and commenced an action against her former lawyer for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and against the respondent for ending her IRB.
[3] The appellant commenced her proceeding for IRB by applying for mediation on April 3, 2008. The report of the mediator indicating that mediation had failed was dated December 11, 2008 and the appellant commenced her action against the respondent on December 12, 2008 – almost six years following the end of her IRB.
Presentation of petition October 5, 2016 Petitions -Automobile Insurance
Introduction of FAIR, OTLA, IWC at Queen’s Park https://drive.google.com/
Most Ontarians say justice system ‘broken’: survey
The Action Group on Access to Justice (TAG) asked Ontarians to describe the centuries-old system in a recent survey. In a poll of 1,500 adults by Abacus Data Inc. in August, the verdict the advocacy body received was damning: 78 per cent called Ontario’s justice system “old-fashioned,” 71 per cent said it was “intimidating.” “Confusing,” “inefficient” and “broken” was how more than 60 per cent of respondents described it.
Skin in the game: Moral hazard and disaster risk reduction
Moral hazard can be found in many places but, ironically, much of it is created by the very existence of insurance. What’s more, outside sources of moral hazard can affect insurance – and insurers – greatly (though usually indirectly).
http://www.insblogs.com/busine
Access to Justice Week
This week will include a range of engagement and learning opportunities for the public, legal professionals, community workers, students and other access to justice advocates.