Expert witness battles dragging out personal injury trials
Alleging that Insurer Is Trying to Bolster its Denial for a Hearing is Not Sufficient Reason for Refusing an Insurer Examination: LAT Decision 17-002973
Treatment financing critical when insurance benefits denied
Ontario Laws Now Tougher on Careless Drivers Who Endanger or Hurt Pedestrians
We’ve written before about penalties for drivers who hit pedestrians or other vulnerable road users, and how the consequences are often grossly inadequate considering the injury or fatality they are responsible for.
It’s been a while since Ontario last strengthened laws against drivers who ignore crosswalk and crossover laws, but as of September 1st, the fines and demerits for these violations have increased.
 The defence has now brought what is commonly referred to as a “threshold motion” for a declaration that the plaintiff’s claim for non-pecuniary loss is barred on the basis that his injuries do not fall within the exceptions to the statutory immunity contained and provided for in s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8 and the applicable regulations.
Applicable Legal Principles
 Section 267.5 of the Insurance Act provides that the owner of an automobile is not liable in an action for non-pecuniary loss unless the injured person has sustained permanent serious disfigurement or permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function. In the present case the plaintiff did sustain some scarring of his ankle as a result of the accident, but there is no suggestion that this would meet the definition under the legislation. Therefore, the question to be addressed is whether he sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.