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
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.
The theory of neural plasticity claims that long after a brain is injured it may still retain the ability to repair itself, to regain lost functions by establishing new neural pathways in response to experiences and functional demands. It is an exciting and potentially disruptive way of understanding the brain.
https://www.brainline.org/arti
VICTORIA – The British Columbia government has introduced legislation that will attempt to restore the finances of the public auto insurance agency.
Attorney General David Eby has promised changes to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia as it faced a forecasted deficit of $1.3 billion.
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
[1] The plaintiff moved to set aside the registrar’s administrative dismissal of the action dated October 9, 2015. The request was opposed by the defendants.
[2] By decision dated February 8, 2018, I granted the plaintiff’s motion. I did not accept the plaintiff’s argument that the dismissal was improper because the plaintiff was under a disability but applied the factors set out in Reid v. Dow Corning, reported at [2001] O.J. No. 2365 to the particular factual circumstances of this case and concluded that it was in the interest of justice that the plaintiff be allowed to continue with his claim.
[3] In my decision, I observed that granting the order setting aside the administrative dismissal was an indulgence for the plaintiff and not an endorsement of slow progress in the action which has now been outstanding for just short of six years. I required the parties to file a timetable for completion of outstanding matters leading to the setting down of the action for trial which they have now done.
[4] The parties were not able to resolve the issue of costs and as a result provided costs submissions.
[5] The plaintiff’s claim arose from two motor vehicle accidents. The first, which occurred June 1, 2010, involved the defendant Amsterdam and the second, which occurred December 24, 2010, involved the Dashwood defendants.
[32] While the issue is not a complicated one, nevertheless it was important to both the plaintiff and the defendants from their respective positions.
[33] The informal offer to settle was not in the form mandated by rule 49 and was not designated as open for acceptance once the motion was brought. As such, it has no significant impact on my decision as to costs.
[34] Under the circumstances of this case, based on the actions of the plaintiff in failing to comply with the timetable ordered at the status hearing and his failure to act promptly thereafter, I am convinced that there should be no order of costs in favour of the plaintiff.
[35] As to the defendants, while opposing the motion may have been reasonable as I have indicated, their lack of success and partial complicity with the delay in bringing the matter forward makes it inappropriate for there to be a costs order in their favour.
[36] Therefore, in summary, there will be no order as to costs of the motion.
[1] Wassem Elayouti was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 26, 2012. Mr. Elayouti’s vehicle was rear-ended when it was stopped at a red light at the intersection of Hunt Club Road, near Bridle Path Drive, in the City of Ottawa. The other plaintiffs are Mr. Elayouti’s wife, Jenan Zammar, and their three children. Although the affidavit evidence does not address the subject, it appears that Ms. Zammar was not in the vehicle when the accident occurred.
[2] The evidence on the motion is that the claims on behalf of the children are made pursuant to s. 61 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. Once again, although the affidavit evidence does not address the subject directly, it appears that none of the children were in the vehicle when the accident occurred.
[3] The action is scheduled to proceed to trial in June 2018. A settlement of the accident is said to have been negotiated. It calls for the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the all-inclusive sum of $75,000. There is no evidence as to how that sum was arrived at arithmetically. A breakdown of the $75,000 for damages, pre-judgment interest, and costs is not included in the record.
[4] The motion is for an order approving the portion of the settlement related to the claims on behalf of the children. It is proposed that the children’s claims be dismissed without costs and that they shall receive no monetary amount from the settlement.
[5] The relief identified in the notice of motion also includes a request for an order that all of the claims (i.e. including the claims of Mr. Elayouti and Ms. Zammar) be dismissed without costs.
Disposition
[6] I am unable to grant the motion based on the current record. The deficiencies identified in the motion record, and discussed below, shall be addressed in additional materials to be filed in support of the motion for approval of the settlement of the children’s claims. I remain seized of the motion.
[7] A copy of this endorsement shall be served on the defendants.
[34] I find that the CFRA does not comply with the requirements of the Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.15, and the regulations thereunder. There are a number of deficiencies in the CFRA, including that it does not provide the client with an example of how the contingency fee will be calculated. It also fails to inform the client that he may seek independent legal advice with respect to the terms of the CFRA. There are other deficiencies in the CFRA. It is not necessary to address them at this stage of the approval process.
[35] Specifically because the CFRA is non-compliant, court approval of the terms of the CFRA is required. If QTMG intends to seek that approval, the requisite materials shall be filed at the same time as the additional materials with respect to the motion for approval of the settlement of the children’s claims are filed. The materials need to address approval of the CFRA and, assuming the CFRA is approved, the account proposed pursuant to the CFRA.
In Ontario, it is not enough for a car accident victim to prove that he or she has been injured by the fault of another to sue for his or her pain and suffering or health care expenses. Victims must also meet a test called the “threshold” to be compensated for these losses.
If you’re the type to haggle with a cop or a judge over demerit points because of how it might affect your car insurance rates, it may come as a surprise to learn that your insurance company doesn’t care. Oh, they care about the ticket – just not the points.
Once a jury renders a verdict in a motor vehicle personal injury action, unless counsel have worked together to agree prior to trial on many of the contentious issues many trial counsel turn their mind to after the battle, the post trial motion before the trial Judge can make or break a jury verdict.
We tell our kids that nothing they write or say online is private. We tell them that the follies they share online could follow them into adulthood, to their detriment. We tell them to be careful what they share, and with whom, on social media. So why do so many adults not follow their own advice?
A woman who surreptitiously married her ex-boyfriend after he suffered a “catastrophic” brain injury spent six years fighting his family in court — paid for by Ontario’s taxpayer-funded legal aid system.
The recent slew of mergers and acquisitions is part of a larger corporate transformation that is remaking American healthcare – for the worse.
A golden age of corporate medicine may be dawning. A slew of mergers and acquisitions looks set to transform American healthcare, drawing health insurance giants, pharmacy benefit managers, physicians’ practices, drugstores, surgical centers and “retail clinics” in pharmacies and supermarkets together into giant corporate healthcare blobs.