Latest News Articles

http://canlii.ca/t/hqt0f

[1]               The defendant insurer moves under Rule 21 for an order to strike the statement of claim on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, and for determination of a question of law, to wit: whether the plaintiff’s claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

[2]               The plaintiff pleads:

1.   that she was injured in a car accident,
2.   that the defendant is liable to pay her Statutory Accident Benefits, and
3.   that it has shown bad faith, negligence and fraud in administering her claim.

[3]               As a result she claims damages for mental distress and aggravated and punitive damages.

[4]               The defendant submits that the claim is barred by s.280 of the Insurance Act, SO 2014, c. 9, Sched. 3, s.14. The plaintiff says that the legislation prevents her from suing for accident benefits, but does not bar her independent claims for bad faith in the administration of accident benefits.

[6]               Section 10 of RRO 1990, Reg. 664 provides:

10. If the Licence Appeal Tribunal finds that an insurer has unreasonably withheld or delayed payments, the Licence Appeal Tribunal, in addition to awarding the benefits and interest to which an insured person is entitled under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, may award a lump sum of up to 50 per cent of the amount to which the person was entitled at the time of the award together with interest on all amounts then owing to the insured (including unpaid interest) at the rate of 2 per cent per month, compounded monthly, from the time the benefits first became payable under the Schedule. O. Reg. 43/16, s. 4.

[7]               The question before me is whether a dispute “in respect of an insured person’s entitlement to statutory accident benefits or in respect of the amount of statutory accident benefits to which an insured person is entitled” includes a claim for administration of accident benefits fraudulently, negligently or in bad faith. The words of a statute are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme and object of the Act and the intention of Parliament.

The at-fault insurer does not pay the first $38,000 in pain and suffering damages; why the large deductible?

https://www.deutschmannlaw.com/blog/post/auto-insurance-is-on-the-radar-in-the-election-facts-you-should-know-part-1

It is a trend most Canadian judges and lawyers do not like: a growing number of Canadians are representing themselves in court. Some hire a lawyer then find the legal fees are unaffordable. Others opt to argue their own case from the beginning.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-march-25-2018-1.4589621/more-canadians-are-acting-as-their-own-lawyer-because-they-don-t-have-a-choice-1.4589633

On a recent occasion, I listened to a family lawyer colleague talk about the circumstances of a case where the parties seemed to be really intransigent.

The case had had a number of twists and what seemed to me to be some bad behaviour on both sides. I was curious enough to ask how long the case had been going on.

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/article/shorten-timelines-and-improve-perverse-system-15494/

In 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in Moore v Getahun that it is appropriate and essential for counsel to consult and collaborate with expert witnesses in preparing expert reports. However, this practice is not without limits considering an expert’s duty to provide a fair, objective and non-partisan opinion. In this third article in a series on expert evidence, the jurisprudence on where counsel should draw the line in providing input to an expert witness is surveyed.

http://www.lerners.ca/lernx/expert-advice-series-consultation-and-collaboration-between-counsel-and-expert-witnesses/

Death and serious injuries are an unacceptable price to pay for speed on city streets. Humans make mistakes. Streets can be redesigned for safety and compensate for human imperfection. Those are the key premises of Vision Zero, which we wrote about last February. A year later, we are encouraged to see that Vision Zero is gaining momentum in Ontario.

http://www.vandykelaw.ca/2018/03/vision-zero-in-ontario-is-momentum-picking-up/

Toronto doctor Javad Peirovy was found guilty three years ago of sexually abusing four female patients.

He “inappropriately touched” their breasts, they reported to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), the self-regulator of doctors in the province.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/03/25/the-radical-paradigm-shift-thats-changing-ontarios-oversight-system-for-health-professionals.html

In December, a British disciplinary tribunal suspended a barrister for six months because he gave £2,300 ($3,930 CDN) to a legal aid client who had told him that she could not afford food or electricity. The barrister, who had recently reported earnings of £787,000 ($1.3-million CDN) a year from legal aid, told the disciplinary panel that he wanted to help the woman, who struggled with drug addiction, “turn her life around.”

http://nationalmagazine.ca/Articles/Spring-2018/Have-legal-regulators-lost-sight-of-the-public-int.aspx?lang=EN

Mr. Ivanovic was injured in a car accident on January 30, 2014 and sought accident benefits from Allstate however, when the parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation Mr. Ivanovic applied for arbitration at the FSCO.

https://www.deutschmannlaw.com/blog/post/applicant-has-cat-impairment-ivanovic-and-allstate

Following the news, some media outlets have outlined ways individual Facebook users can better protect their data. But many cybersecurity experts say these measures aren’t particularly effective when it comes to powerful companies like Facebook, nor do they believe individual Facebook users have much power over their personal data at all.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/can-you-really-protect-your-privacy-on-facebook_us_5ab01bf2e4b0697dfe199559