CAT at the LAT

Mr. Batty stated that the LAT actively encourages parties to make use of private mediation, as the LAT does not consider mediation services to be within their mandate. With 17 weeks from application to initial case conference, he suggested that this to be the ideal time frame for parties to make efforts to attempt resolution

This province seeks insurers’ input on joint and several liability reform

The Ontario government wants to hear from insurance companies on the controversial joint and several liability rule, which some say is unfair to deep pockets defendants. 

Brian Goldfinger on Liability and Losses in Ontario Car Accident Cases

Every car accident case in Ontario has three major components:

DamagesWithout a personal injury lawyer establishing all of these components, the personal injury case will fail. Meaning, that if  Defendant successfully refutes, or creates sufficient doubt to surpass a balance of probabilities, the Defendant will win the case. As a plaintiff personal injury lawyer, you don’t want to see that happen.


Where’s the Accountability in Canada’s Justice System?

Accountability is a buzzword of our time—for everyone except for the guardians of accountability, namely, lawyers and judges. But things can change. Making it happen requires concerted pressure on politicians at all levels. Only they have the power to impose the collective will of citizens against collective resistance in the justice system. 

Ontario Health Sector: 2019 updated assessment of Ontario health spending

After five years of fiscal restraint, Ontario’s health spending grew significantly over the past two years. From 2011-12 to 2016-17, health spending grew by an annual average of 2.2 per cent, while between 2016-17 and 2018-19, health spending growth doubled to 4.4 per cent on average. The most significant increases in funding growth rates were for Ontario drug programs, hospitals, long-term care homes and community programs. 

More support needed for unpaid caregivers in Canada

Statistics Canada says more than one in four Canadians puts in regular hours providing care for family members and friends with chronic illnesses or disabilities. All that unpaid labour comes with a high emotional cost, according to an  editorialpublished Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ). 

$170,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Hip Injury, PTSD, TOS and Chronic Pain

In today’s case (Firman v. Asadi) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2013 collision.  The Defendant denied fault but was found liable at trial.  The collision resulted in multiple injuries including a torn labrum, thoracic outlet syndrome, PTSD and chronic pain. 
Peter B. Cozzi Professional Corporation v. Szot, 2019 ONSC 1274 (CanLII), <  

[52]           The ATE Policy is between DAS and Mr. Nguyen.  Aviva is not a party to the ATE Policy, and is not a named beneficiary.  The doctrine of privity of contract states that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person except for the parties to the contract:  London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd.1992 CanLII 41 (SCC)[1992] 3 S.C.R. 299 at para. 200.  The exceptions to the doctrine of privity do not apply here, as there is nothing in the terms of the ATE Policy to suggest that the parties intended to extend the benefit to Aviva or to assign the benefits to Aviva: see London Drugs at paras. 255-58. 

[53]           Contrary to Aviva’s submission, the ATE Policy contains no ambiguity in respect of the payment of costs and disbursements.  The terms of the ATE Policy clearly state that it is applicable to both.  The court should not create an ambiguity where there is none:  Chilton v. Co-operators General Insurance Co.1997 CanLII 765 (ON CA)[1997] O.J. No. 579 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 26.  Given that there is no ambiguity, it is not open to the court to rewrite the terms of the ATE Policy:  Skunk v. Ketash2018 ONCA 450 (CanLII) at para. 10; Axa Insurance Canada v. Ani-Wall Concrete Forming Inc. (2008), 2008 ONCA 563 (CanLII)91 O.R. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.) at paras. 30-31.

[54]           Nothing in the language of the ATE Policy requires that an adverse costs order be paid before the disbursements owed to the insured’s lawyer.  The issue of priority does not arise because the only beneficiary of the ATE Policy was Mr. Nguyen.  According to DAS, once the Proceeds are paid to the beneficiary, the beneficiary can decide how to apply the proceeds.  Based on the terms of the ATE Policy, this is the only logical result.

[55]           Moreover, Aviva’s claim does not fall within the limited circumstances under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, where a non-party is entitled to pursue a claim against the insurer.  (Insurance Act ss. 132 and 258).The statutory exceptions to the requirement of privity support an interpretation of the ATE Policy that is consistent with its terms.