In the article “Why It’s Good Business to Fire a Client”posted January 24th in SLAW online legal magazine http://www.slaw.ca/20
The Laywers
‘FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education’
The information provided below is not legal advice, and it may not apply in every situation. FAIR is not a legal service and we do not recommend particular lawyers or firms. We do not provide legal advice. This page is for information purposes only.
ALERT
We are hearing about more and more cases where the time limitations for filing have lapsed due to a failure by a plaintiff’s legal representative to meet deadlines. Claimants should stay informed of what is happening with their files and forms and ask the questions about filing dates and limitations. Please see some of the decisions and articles listed at the bottom of this page for details
More information on choosing a lawyer or if you have issues with your legal bill here.
***************************************
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.
Bad client – what about bad lawyers!
The “Trumpification” of Lawyer Advertising – Reflections of a Personal Injury Lawyer
Watching Donald Trump, we see the self-aggrandizing sales themes he has become known for. Amongst others, they seem to be “I am the best“, “I am the toughest” and “I am the most successful“.
THE DUTY TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH IS A TWO-WAY STREET
Hearsay is the member newsletter of Canadian Defence Lawyers
All Insurers are well aware of their obligation to act in good faith in investigating, processing and handling the claims of Insureds. They are also aware of the potential pitfalls of failing to comply with those obligations.
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.
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.