• 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.

May 30, 2018

by Admin2

Ontario Motorists Overpaid $5B for Auto Insurance, Report Finds

Drivers in Ontario may have overpaid as much as $5 billion for auto insurance, according to a new report released by the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA). 

Claims are on the decline, but insurance profits soared to $1.5 billion in 2016. The figure represents a 60% increase compared to four years earlier, according to the report.

 
______________________________ ______________________________ ______

Insurers must improve privacy practices

In the year 2018, privacy is hot a topic. Understanding privacy rights in accident benefits cases where multiple individuals apply to the same insurance company for benefits can be a big challenge.  
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ______

TTC accuses personal injury law firm of filing fraudulent accident claims

The TTC is suing a Scarborough personal injury law firm for more than $1.5 million over allegations it defrauded the transit agency for 10 years by systematically doctoring benefit claims made by victims of collisions involving buses and streetcars. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ____

Tesla in autopilot mode crashes into parked police cruiser in California

A Tesla sedan set to autopilot mode crashed into a parked Laguna Beach Police Department vehicle in Laguna Beach, Calif., authorities said.

The driver of the Tesla sustained minor injuries after the Tuesday morning crash, according to public information officer Sgt. Jim Cota. The police officer was not in the SUV at the time of the crash.

https://globalnews.ca/news/ 4240255/tesla-autopilot-crash- california-police-vehicle/

 
______________________________ ______________________________ ___

Multiple complaints against same physician can assist plaintiff

The recent two-year suspension of an Ontario gynecologist for professional misconduct highlights the importance of coming forward with complaints of mistreatment or malpractice, Toronto personal injury lawyer Jessica Mahabir tells AdvocateDaily.com. 
 

May 29, 2018

by Admin2

COLUMN: Ducking the solution to sky-high auto insurance

The Liberals and New Democrats vaguely promise to lower Ontario’s sky-high auto insurance rates. Yet for reasons of history and embarrassment, neither is promoting the obvious solution: public auto insurance. 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ______

The New Lazar Report Confirms that Auto Insurer Income is up 60% in last four years while accident benefits continue to drop for injured drivers

The Lazar Report confirmed what those of us dealing with auto insurance daily already knew. Accident benefits have steadily decreased over the years, insurance companies have been making record profits, and consumers have no choice but to pay the record high premiums in Ontario for coverage that is in many cases far from adequate in the event of personal injury in an accident. 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ _____

This percentage of consumers believe auto insurance fraud is an “accepted practice”

Nearly half of customers polled for an Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) survey believed that committing auto insurance fraud is an “accepted practice” in B.C., with most saying that claims contain an “element” of fraud. 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ____

Drivers take on car insurance companies for coverage you can’t get in Canada

It’s the insurance claim you can’t make — to be compensated for the value a vehicle loses after being damaged in a crash.

Even when repairs are done properly, the diminished value means drivers lose money when they go to sell the vehicle.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/busines s/vehicles-insurance-accidents -diminished-value-1.4675414

______________________________ ______________________________ ______

Pay-as-you-go auto insurance coming to Ontario this summer

With CAA MyPace, drivers in Ontario will have the option to pay for their auto insurance in 1,000-kilometre increments. Those who sign up will be charged a base rate, after which they’ll pay every time they hit that kilometre milestone, up to 9,000 kilometres, when the pay-as-you-go charges will equal what the driver would pay under a standard auto insurance program. At this point, they will not be charged for further increments. 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ _____

IBAO wants brokers to explain insurance basics to Ontario political candidates

The association wants a broker to meet every candidate to explain some basics of the industry. For example, candidates will be told the difference between agents, direct sellers, and brokers. It seems auto insurance will play a role in this election, but Hancock says few politicians understand the market. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ____

Case closed: Plaintiff is the priority in DAS Canada’s legal solution

“We’ve consistently held the protection of the plaintiff as our highest priority, and our policyholder in our insurance products is the plaintiff, not the law firm,” said Dominique Zipper (pictured), ATE manager. “The DAS ATE policy is in place to protect the plaintiff, and the policy actually travels with the plaintiff if they move law firms. The plaintiff is the owner of the insurance policy and the law firm is really the distributor of the insurance.” 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ____

Capping damages

It’s been 40 years since the Supreme Court of Canada released its trilogy of rulings that affected the way non-pecuniary damages have been awarded in Canada. Fearing an escalation in damages awards, those rulings limited the maximum amount of non-pecuniary damages a plaintiff could receive in a civil action. 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ____

Here, There and Everywhere, Chasing Fraudsters

The United States Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, has charged five individuals with defrauding businesses and insurance companies of more than $31.7 million in an elaborate slip and fall scheme dating back to 2013.1 
 

May 28, 2018

by Admin2

May 25, 2018

by Admin2

May 24, 2018

by Admin2
Auto insurer’s secret cameras in sting operation broke law, body shop claims

Aviva Canada accused of acting like ‘peeping Tom’ in undercover operation targeting collision repair shops

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/auto-insurer-s-secret-cameras-in-sting-operation-broke-law-body-shop-claims-1.4674774

_______________________________________________

Saving Joint and Several Liability

Where more than one party is at fault and causes harm to someone, they are, in law, equally responsible to pay out the total amount of damages owing to the injured person. This happens frequently in car accident cases where an at-fault driver’s insurance policy limits are not adequate to cover the injured victim’s damages.

http://otlablog.com/saving-joint-several-liability/?platform=hootsuite

______________________________ _______________________
 
A.B. v. Waite, 2018 ONSC 3155 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hs466 
 

[21]           This was not a frivolous case.  As I stated to the jury in my charge, there was evidence that would have supported findings in favour of the plaintiff.  The plaintiff should not be penalized unduly for proceeding with the action and taking it to trial.  This is not a case for substantial indemnity costs.

[22]           I have not applied Rule 49.10 to the earlier offers.  Had I done so, the plaintiff’s costs would be truncated as of the January 2016 date and she would be liable for the defendants’ costs thereafter.  Instead I have attempted to find a number that is greater than that which might have been generated had I ignored those offers entirely but still appears fair to both parties and in keeping with the objective of the rules.  I have fixed the costs after reviewing the bills of costs, applying Rule 49.10 to the fully compliant offer and having regard to the earlier offers under Rule 49.13.  Subject to the adjustments discussed above, the bills of costs are not unreasonable

[23]           The ultimate objective is fairness to the parties.  The defendants are entitled to a level of indemnity for beating their offers.  The objective is not to penalize the plaintiff unduly or to terrorize future plaintiffs.  Ultimately, however, it is the price of admission to our litigation system that proceeding to trial carries with it the risk of costs.

May 23, 2018

by Admin2

Your letters: How to fix Ontario’s auto-insurance woes 

Is Thomas Walkom really suggesting a public auto insurance system for Ontario? Let’s look at B.C. and Manitoba for an idea of what that would mean for drivers here. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ______

Man’s car insurance shoots up $600 per year after he moves to new neighbourhood

A few days after moving, Steven Baker thought he was being diligent by phoning his insurance company to inform it that his home address had changed. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ____

Customers say these are the best car insurance companies in Ontario

Customers are growing more and more frustrated with Canadian auto insurance companies as the quality of customer service improves nearly everywhere else, according to a report released this month by J.D. Power. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ___

Car Accident Series: How Contributory Negligence Impacts Your Case

In the aftermath of a car accident, everyone is primarily concerned with the health and wellbeing of those involved. However, it’s only a matter of time before the blame game starts and you begin to hear why at least one person involved in a collision bears responsibility for the damage or injuries sustained. Usually the blame game begins right at the scene of an accident, between the people involved, the investigating officers, and the witnesses to the crash. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ _____

Nearly two years since Toronto announced Vision Zero, the city is on pace for its deadliest year for pedestrians and cyclists

Within 24 hours of announcing the Vision Zero Challenge on Tuesday, a call for ideas on how Toronto can reach its target of eliminating traffic deaths, one cyclist was dead in the city and two were injured. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ____

Privacy Commissioner expresses concern that proposed Bank Act changes could open door to more data abuses

Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien is expressing concern with new banking powers over customer data that are contained in the government’s latest budget bill, telling the Senate banking committee Tuesday that his office was never consulted on the Bank Act changes. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ____

Ontario doesn’t have enough doctors

I’m often asked if attracting new doctors to Ontario is the key to putting an end to wait times and hallway medicine. I reply, “It’s complicated” — and it is — which proves once again that our health care system is not only inefficient, it’s downright inexplicable. 
 

May 22, 2018

by Admin2

Independent Examinations are Often Found to be Anything But Impartial

The Globe and Mail published an investigative report highlighting the trend of car insurance companies of engaging “hired gun” doctors to produce biased “Independent Assessments” of injured drivers’ medical conditions. The practice is real and ongoing. Arbitrators at the LAT and FSCO have called out some medical doctors and insurance companies for the practice which is ongoing. This casts further questions on the continued reduction of benefits to injured drivers by te insurance companies and proposed changes to the benefits scheme after the next election. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ______

Auto fraud: a cost of doing business?

Canada’s property and casualty insurance industry should do much more to fight auto insurance fraud, a senior claims representative of Canada’s second largest insurer says. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ____

Ontario parties are ducking the issue of public auto insurance

The Liberals and New Democrats vaguely promise to lower Ontario’s sky-high auto insurance rates. Yet for reasons of history and embarrassment, neither is promoting the obvious solution: public auto insurance. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ _____

Ontario Liberals promise to end postal code auto insurance discrimination if re-elected

Liberals in Ontario are promising that they will end the insurance industry practice of setting higher premiums for drivers based on their postal code – a promise that the NDP claims was originally theirs. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ____\
 

How Google-happy jurors are derailing Ontario trials

Three recent trials in Ontario have been rocked by juror misconduct connected to the internet, reviving concerns about the challenges of ensuring a fair trial in the digital age.

 
______________________________ ______________________________ ____
 

Patterson v. Peladeau, 2018 ONSC 2625 (CanLII)

After eight weeks of trial, wherein liability was hotly contested, the jury began five days of deliberation on a Friday. Over the weekend, juror #1 engaged in internet legal research at his home. He found the Fault Determination Rules regulation under the Insurance Act. On Monday morning, juror #1 discussed the Regulation with the other jurors. The jury after over two hours of discussion sent questions to the judge. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ____
 

Brain Injury Grief Is Extraordinary Grief

The last time I tried to research grief from brain injury, I found nothing helpful. After giving up years ago, I tried again in April. I was surprised and heartened to find that brain injury grief was being recognized at long last. Skimming articles from the US and UK validated my belief that brain injury grief is a different and difficult beast from other kinds of grief. 
 
 
______________________________ ______________________________ ___

B.C. decision links mild TBI to plaintiff’s early onset dementia

In a rare move, the Supreme Court of British Columbia awarded a man almost $1.3 million in damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident where he suffered a mild traumatic brain injury which resulted in early onset dementia, Vancouver personal injury lawyer Sean Lerner tells AdvocateDaily.com. 
 
______________________________ __________________________________

Papamichalopoulos v. Greenwood, 2018 ONSC 2743 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hrrxc

[10]      Given the nature of the plaintiff’s allegations (the severity of the injuries he says he suffered and their alleged permanence) and the depictions set out in the photos found (depictions which, on their face, appear to be at odds with the plaintiff’s allegations), photographs of the plaintiff, both before and after the trauma that he alleges having suffered, are relevant.  Photographs taken after the alleged incident are relevant to the effect (and its evolution) of the injuries on the plaintiff’s enjoyment of life;  and photographs taken before are relevant for comparison (see:  Morabito v. DiLorenzo,  2011 ONSC 7379(CanLII), at para. 5).

[11]      “Where, [as here], in addition to a publicly-accessible profile, a party maintains a private Facebook profile….it is reasonable to infer from the presence of content on the party’s public profile that similar content likely exists on the private profile.  A court then can order the production of relevant postings on the private profile” (Leduc v. Roman, 2009 CanLII 6838 (ON SC), 2009 CarswellOnt 843, at para. 30).

______________________________ ___________________________
 

Sivananthan and Coachman

2018-05-08, Decision: Appeal, Final Decision, FSCO 5536 

https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD /5536

 

For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the Arbitrator correctly ordered payment of medical benefits and IRBs, where the order was based upon Coachman’s complete failure to respond to Ms. Sivananthan’s claims. The order cannot be supported, where payment is based upon what the Arbitrator considered to be an improper response. The Arbitrator also erred in failing to precisely determine the amount of IRBs payable, after deducting post-accident income. Therefore, the issue of the amount of IRBs payable must be re-heard. As a result the question of whether the Arbitrator erred in amending his order to allow deduction of post-accident income is moot. The Arbitrator also erred in ordering Coachman to pay Non-Earner Benefits (NEBs) without knowing that the conditions for entitlement to payment will be met at the time when payments will become due. 

The Arbitrator correctly concluded that Coachman unreasonably delayed or denied payment of the benefits that survive this appeal, therefore his order for payment of a special award stands. However, the Arbitrator erred in failing to fix the amount of the award with precision. Therefore, the question of the amount of the special award is remitted for re-hearing.

[]

The Arbitrator found that Coachman committed several breaches of its obligations under the Schedule, justifying a special award. He ordered Coachman to pay the highest possible special award, in an undetermined amount. He ruled that Coachman is precluded from taking the position that Ms. Sivananthan’s injuries fall within the MIG. He fixed the quantum of IRBs at $255.71 per week and he ordered Coachman to pay IRBs, from one week after the 1st accident and ongoing. The Arbitrator also ordered payment of ongoing NEBs, with the caveat that Ms. Sivananthan cannot collect the NEBs as long as she continued to receive the IRBs. The Arbitrator also ordered Coachman to pay for all of the claimed treatment, for the In-Home Assessment and for the Disability Certificate. He reasoned that Coachman is liable to pay Ms. Sivananthan her “full expenses” of the arbitration. He ordered payment of expenses, in an amount to be determined.

[]

The Arbitrator found the following conduct by Coachman to be unreasonable, with regard to the benefits that survive the appeal:

·         Failing to use the available information to calculate weekly IRBs

·         Failing to respond to the claim for IRBs

·         Failing to respond to claims for treatment

I am satisfied that the Arbitrator correctly concluded that Coachman must pay a special award because of its complete failure to respond to the treatment plans that survive this appeal, and its complete failure to respond to Ms. Sivananthan’s claim for IRB. The issue of the amount of the special award is remitted for re-hearing.

A special award can only be attached to benefits owed at the time it is made. Therefore the Arbitrator’s order is rescinded as it relates to the treatment plan in the amount of $1,245.64, the treatment plan in the amount of $3,089.00, dated November 1, 2014 and the In-Home Assessment. I note that the Arbitrator made no finding that Ms. Sivananthan was in fact too ill to attend the assessment that she did not attend regarding the treatment plan of November 1, 2014. The question of entitlement to a special award regarding these benefits is remitted for re-hearing. Since nothing is payable for NEBs, no special award can flow from the Arbitrator’s findings in this regard.  

______________________________ 

Nasir v. Kochmanski, 2018 ONSC 3052 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hs232

[17]       While counsel for the plaintiff urged that one of the grounds for an adjournment was alleged improper issuance or signing of summonses to witnesses, there is no evidence in support of that allegation, nor was any authority offered by counsel on this ground.

[18]       Counsel for the plaintiff was most reluctant to acknowledge that the only basis upon which the adjournment was sought was alleged serious misconduct on the part of the defendant’s defence medical expert, Dr. Adrian Upton.

[19]        In the course of his submissions, counsel for the plaintiffs stated that if the trial were to proceed, he plans on calling as witnesses, counsel for the defendant, who were present in court on this motion, to demonstrate that Dr. Upton has committed a “fraud” in terms of the medical legal reports he has provided for the purpose of deceiving the court. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs with respect to the alleged fraud or misconduct on the part of Dr. Upton, other than a submission, based entirely on speculation at this point, that the last report from Dr. Upton was forged and not signed by him. This ground for the adjournment request is based entirely on counsel’s own assessment of Dr. Upton’s handwriting, without any evidence whatsoever being offered in support of this submission.

[20]       Further, counsel for the plaintiffs took the position that as there is negative judicial commentary about Dr. Upton in prior tribunal decisions and civil cases an adjournment should be granted in order to allow him an opportunity to further investigate the evidence that is available with respect to those earlier proceedings where Dr. Upton provided expert medical evidence.

[21]       The plaintiffs’ counsel intends on relying on and introducing evidence at trial on decisions from an administrative tribunal and prior judicial commentary in regard to Dr. Upton’s qualifications as a medical expert witness and as to his credibility.

[22]       Section 36 (3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act has been held to constitute an absolute prohibition against the use of information and evidence adduced before a tribunal such as the Health Professions and Appeal Board in a subsequent civil proceeding.

[23]       In M.F. v. Sutherland, 2000 CanLII 5761 (ON CA), [2000] O.J. No. 2522 (C.A.) at para. 29 Laskin JA stated as follows in regard to s. 36 (3): 

[29] I find no relevant indicators of legislative meaning to

displace the presumption in favour of the ordinary meaning of s.36(3).  The purpose of s. 36(3) is to encourage the reporting of complaints of professional misconduct against members of a health profession, and to ensure that those complaints are fully investigated and fairly decided without any participant in the proceedings – a health professional, a patient, a complainant, a witness or a College employee – fearing that a document prepared for College proceedings can be used in a civil action.  This purpose would be defeated by reading a fraud or bad faith exception into s. 36(3).  The mere allegation of fraud or bad faith, however unfounded, could make the provision inapplicable.

[24]       Following Sutherland, the court in Montgomery v. Seiden, [2012] O.J. No. 136 (SCJ) at para 52 expressly stated that the absolute prohibition contained in s. 36 (3) applied to information from a complaint to the Health Professions and Appeal Board. See also: Conroy v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2011 ONSC 324 (CanLII), [2011] O.J. No. 136 (SCJ).

[25]       Thus, contrary to the submissions of counsel for the plaintiff, I have concluded that any prior tribunal decisions or court rulings with respect to Dr. Upton are inadmissible at this trial and as such the plaintiffs’ request for an adjournment based on the need for further investigation of past tribunal rulings does not form a reasonable basis upon which the adjournment of this trial should be granted.

[26]       As to prior judicial rulings and decisions regarding Dr. Upton’s qualifications and credibility, the Court of Appeal Court of Ontario has recently dealt with this issue in its decision Bruff-Murphy v. Gunawawardena, 2017 ONCA 502 (CanLII). In upholding the trial judge’s decision prohibiting cross-examination of the defendant’s expert witness regarding prior civil and arbitral findings made against him, Hourigan J.A. stated as follows at para’s 31 – 32:

[31]      I do not accept this argument. In my view, the prior comments made about Dr. Bail do not amount to a finding of discreditable conduct. Rather, they are the opinions of a judge and two arbitrators regarding the reliability of his testimony in particular cases. This is analogous to the situation in Ghorvei, where a witness’s credibility had been attacked in previous proceedings. Charron J.A. (as she then was) held at para. 31 that those credibility findings from the previous proceedings were not proper material for cross-examination:

In my view, it is not proper to cross-examine a witness on the fact that his or her testimony has been rejected or disbelieved in a prior case. That fact, in and of itself, does not constitute discreditable conduct. I do not think it would be useful to allow cross-examination of a witness on what is, in essence, no more than an opinion on the credibility of unrelated testimony given by this witness in the context of another case. The triers of fact who would witness this cross-examination would not be able to assess the value of that opinion and the effect, if any, on the witness’s credibility without also being provided with the factual foundation for the opinion.

See also R. v. Boyne, 2012 SKCA 124 (CanLII), 405 Sask.R. 163, at paras. 48-51, leave to appeal refused, [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 54. 

[32]      In the present case, the comments of the judge and arbitrators about Mr. Bail’s testimony in the previous cases would have been of no assistance to the jury without an understanding of their factual foundation. That necessary context would only have served to divert the jury from the task at hand and convert the trial into an inquiry regarding the reliability of Dr. Bail’s testimony in the three other proceedings. Thus, in my view, the trial judge did not err in prohibiting this line of cross-examination. 

[27]       I have thus concluded that any prior judicial rulings or decisions relating to Dr. Upton’s qualifications as an expert witness or in respect of his credibility are wholly inadmissible in this pending trial. 

[28]       It is asserted by plaintiffs’ counsel that an adjournment of this trial is required in order to further investigate Dr. Upton’s credibility as a medical expert and as well the “Scheme”, as alleged, wherein counsel essentially submits that counsel for the defendant has been acting in concert with Dr. Upton to deceive the court in past proceedings.

[29]       This ground for the adjournment request is based entirely on speculation alleging a conspiracy by Dr. Upton and the defendant’s lawyers to deceive the jury and the court in this case. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support these most serious allegations which included, in counsel’s submissions, an allegation of fraud as against Dr. Upton and defence counsel.

[30]       In his submissions, counsel for the plaintiffs further urged that given the court’s parens patriae duty, regard must be had for protection of the interests of the minor plaintiff in the circumstances of this case.

[31]       The focus of that submission was entirely based on counsel’s desire to conduct further investigation regarding the very serious allegations made with respect to Dr. Upton and counsel for the defendant.

[32]       Counsel acknowledged that there are five neurological experts who have treated and examined the minor plaintiff and have concluded that he has sustained a traumatic brain injury as a result of the motor vehicle accident giving rise to this action. Thus, in spite of his submissions with respect to the qualifications of the only defence medical expert, Dr. Upton, he states that there is substantial evidence as to the nature and the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries.  All of that evidence will be available for the judge and the jury to consider.

May 17, 2018

by Admin2

Can I Sue my Insurance Broker for Failing to Make Sure I had Adequate Coverage? 

Anyone selling insurance, whether it is an insurance company, insurance broker, or insurance agent, is obligated to ensure consumers purchasing policies understand the available options and choices for insurance coverage. Accordingly, failure to ensure that a consumer, who is interested in purchasing enhanced coverage is meaningfully informed, can lead to legal liability. This post focuses on automobile insurance in Ontario, but the principles are applicable to other types of insurance. 

http://www.mhalaw.ca/news- resources/legal-blog/can-i- sue-my-insurance-broker-for- failing-to-make-sure-i-had- adequate-coverage

____________________________________________________________

Ontario drivers paying too much for insurance: report

A recent report that examines the profitability of the auto insurance industry in Ontario shows that companies continue to exceed financial expectations, while the province has failed to fulfil its promise of reducing premiums by 15 per cent, says Toronto personal injury and employment lawyer Kevin Marshall. 

http://www.advocatedaily.com/ kevin-marshall-ontario- drivers-paying-too-much-for- insurance-report.html

______________________________ ______________________________

What Is Being Done About Driver Inattention in Ontario?

The results are in: Ontario’s roads, trails, and waterways were more deadly last year than in 2016.

Every year, the OPP reports the number of fatalities on the roads and areas they patrol, and the numbers for 2017 are bleak.

http://www.vandykelaw.ca/2018/ 05/what-is-being-done-about- driver-inattention-in-ontario/

______________________________ ______________________________

Non-Attendance of IEs Precludes Insured from Applying to LAT – DW and Heartland Farm Mutual, 2018 CanLII 13145 ON LAT 17-001508

DW was injuredin a car accident on February 16, 2016.  DW applied for medical benefits under the SABs but Heartland denied payment for three treatment plans related to occupational therapy services, a memory foam mattress and a reclining chair.  The denials were based upon DW’s refusal to attend scheduled IEs.  DW asserts that he refused to attend because Heartland failed to provide “the medical and any other reasons” for the examinations as required under the Schedule. 

https://www.deutschmannlaw. com/blog/post/non-attendance- of-ies-precludes-insured-from- applying-to-lat-dw-and- heartland-farm-mutual-2018- canlii-13145-on-lat-17-001508

______________________________ ______________________________

Jury Deliberations & Mistrial (An example why Jury Trials for Ontario car accident cases should be abolished)

It’s never ok for Google to be your lawyer. Nor is it ok for Google to be your doctor, dentist, accountant, amateur arborist or veterinarian. You get the picture.

But Google and the internet are a wealth of information. That information can be very helpful at times. At other times, it can be very dangerous. So dangerous in fact just doing a simply Google search as a juror can be cause for a mistrial in an Ontario car accident case.

https://www. torontoinjurylawyerblog.com/ 2018/05/jury-deliberations- mistrial-an-example-why-jury- trials-for-ontario-car- accident-cases-should-be- abolished.html

______________________________ ______________________________

Changing the Focus in Medical Negligence

For more than 25 years, the Government of Ontario has provided hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA). The CMPA is the principal provider of defence legal services and indemnity payments for doctors in Canada. Over the last ten years alone, Ontario taxpayers have handed over $1 billion to the CMPA. 

http://otlablog.com/changing- focus-medical-negligence/

______________________________ ______________________________

New research helps prove future economic loss claims for plaintiffs with TBIs

A new landmark study on the risk of dementia for individuals who have suffered traumatic brain injuries is a help to plaintiffs with potential future economic loss claims, Toronto critical injury lawyer John McLeish tells AdvocateDaily.com. 

http://www.advocatedaily.com/ john-mcleish-new-research- helps-prove-future-economic- loss-claims-for-plaintiffs- with-tbis.html

May 16, 2018

by Admin2

Auto insurer faces lawsuit over credit scores in accident benefits claims

A major Ontario auto insurer is facing a lawsuit over allegedly using credit scores in adjusting accident benefits claims. 

https://www. canadianunderwriter.ca/ insurance/auto-insurer-faces- lawsuit-credit-scores- accident-benefits-claims- 1004131796/

______________________________ ______________________________ 

How much Ontario auto insurer might pay if it loses privacy class-action lawsuit

If Canada’s Federal Court were to rule against an Ontario auto insurer sued over allegedly obtaining credit scores of auto accident benefits claimants, the insurer might have to pay up to $10,000 a claimant. 

https://www. canadianunderwriter.ca/ insurance/much-ontario-auto- insurer-might-pay-loses- privacy-class-action-lawsuit- 1004131812/

______________________________ ______________________________ 

Ruling highlights ‘absurd mess’ of threshold test

An Ontario Superior Court decision overruling a jury’s award to a woman injured in a motor vehicle accident will only drive up the cost of personal injury court battles, Toronto litigator Michael Lesage tells AdvocateDaily.com. 

http://www.advocatedaily.com/ michael-lesage-ruling- highlights-absurd-mess-of- threshold-test-1.html

______________________________ ______________________________ _____
FAIR doesn’t take a position on which of the parties will do right by Ontario’s car accident victims since none have a platform that suggests they will take better control of the file. A member has put together an excellent video (no, that’s not our FAIR name on it) reviewing Kathleen Wynne’s systematic attack on victims and the massive cuts starting in  2010. It’s a great place to leave your comments about how you feel about auto insurance issues!

May 15, 2018

by Admin2

Change For The Better Rally in Brampton

Monday, May 21st, 1:30pm

https://www.ontariondp.ca/rall y-brampton

______________________________ ______________________________ _____

Drivers say auto insurance in this province is “financially difficult” to afford: poll

Nearly two-thirds of polled drivers in Newfoundland and Labrador have said that auto insurance has become “financially difficult” to pay for, according to a new poll commissioned by Aviva Canada. 

https://www.canadianunderwrite r.ca/insurance/drivers-say- auto-insurance-province-financ ially-difficult-afford-poll- 1004131663/

______________________________ ______________________________ 

Insurers’ excessive profits symptom of broken regime

A report showing Ontarians are still overpaying for insurance is evidence of the province’s broken no-fault insurance system, Barrie-area personal injury lawyer Steve Rastin tells AdvocateDaily.com .  

http://www.advocatedaily.com/s teve-rastin-insurers-excessive -profits-symptom-of-broken- regime-1.html

______________________________ ______________________________ 

FSCO clarifies that a Form 1 does not govern actual hourly rates for service providers

A Form 1, or Assessment of Attendant Care Needs, contains three parts/levels of attendant care. For each part/level, a particular hourly rate is assigned which is used to calculate an insured persons monthly attendant care needs. The hourly rate used in the Form 1 is governed by the applicable Superintendent’s Guideline. 

https://www.sbalawyers.ca/FSCO -clarifies-that-a-Form-1-does- not-govern-actual-hourly-rates -for-service-providers

______________________________ ______________________________ 

Physician’s Assessment Methodology Not Accepted – Insured is CAT Impaired – Harb and Allstate

Mr. Adel Harb was injured in a car accident on July 6, 2012 when his car was t-boned on his side of the vehicle. His vehicle was damaged to the point that he and the children had to exit the vehicle from the driver’s side. He took the children to the hospital right away, but didn’t experience any pain until later, as he was worried about his children’s and wife’s injuries. He went to see his doctor three days post-accident. 

https://www.deutschmannlaw.com /blog/post/physicians-assessme nt-methodology-not-accepted- insured-is-cat-impaired-harb- and-allstate

______________________________ _____________________________

Focusing on the road: Avoiding collisions caused by distracted driving

Distracted driving crashes resulting in personal injury claims are on the increase in Ontario and are preventable. 

https://lernerspersonalinjury. ca/blogs/focusing-on-the-road- avoiding-collisions-caused-by- distracted-driving/

______________________________ ______________________________ 

Candidate’s 15-year fight with WSIB after workplace injury part of his decision to run provincially

Taylor is running in Guelph for the None of the Above Party (Ontario), a party which doesn’t believe in whipping votes and which leaves open the door to the possibility of hand-picking cabinet ministers from a number of parties. 

https://www.guelphtoday.com/lo cal-news/candidates-15-year-fi ght-with-wsib-after-workplace- injury-part-of-his-decision- to-run-provincially-922520

______________________________ ______________________________ ____
 
Patterson v. Peladeau, 2018 ONSC 2625 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hs0k9 

[1]               This is a motor vehicle personal injury action tried by judge and jury.  Liability was very much in issue.  Following eight weeks of evidence and closing arguments and my jury charge, the jury began five days of deliberation before returning a verdict.  They began their deliberations on a Friday afternoon and returned Monday morning at 9:30 a.m. to continue.  They rendered a verdict at the end of the week, late on a Friday afternoon.

[2]               On the weekend just after the jury began to deliberate, juror #1, while at his home engaged in some internet legal research.  He found a regulation under the Insurance Act, known as the Fault Determination Rules.  On Monday morning he discussed this regulation with the other jurors, which resulted in a jury question conveyed in a note to the court that sought direction about the use to be made of the regulation.  Juror #1 was questioned about the circumstances leading to his obtaining and sharing this information with other jurors.  A corrective charge and admonition was delivered by me the following day, directing the jury that the Regulation was irrelevant, that they were to disabuse their minds of it and were to refrain from any further internet research pertaining to the trial.

[3]               The jury’s verdict, delivered late Friday afternoon, found the plaintiff Mr. Patterson 73% contributorily negligent in the collision and the defendant 27% at fault.  In the circumstances, the plaintiff seeks an order declaring a mistrial due to the alleged contamination of the jury by this internet information and their alleged failure to abide by the court’s correcting charge.  The defendant’s position is that the court’s correcting charge was sufficient to deal with the problem and to ensure a fair trial, and that the jury verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence.