• 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 – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

Latest News Articles

July 9, 2019

Critics of accident insurance reform say Ontario drivers not protected in case of a serious crash

Rhona DesRoches of Fair Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform says she’s not surprised Schenk has to wait to be designated catastrophic despite his critical injuries. 
 
__________________________________________________________________

Wife of man critically injured by flying tire on Hwy. 400 speaks out about vehicle safety

The wife of a man who is recovering from severe injuries is speaking out about road safety after the couple’s vehicle was hit by a flying tire while travelling on Highway 400. 
 
______________________________________________________________

Hwy. 400 flying tire victim still waiting for insurance company to designate injuries as ‘catastrophic’

As Catherine McDonald reports, lawyers say Ontario government reforms which began in 2016 have accident victims waiting longer for less benefits. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Does anyone still believe that $200,000 is enough auto liability coverage?

Although Ontario motorists can legally put their vehicles on the road with as little as $200,000 in liability coverage, brokers likely wouldn’t want one of those motorists for a client. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Toronto cyclist wins $3.7K in damages over injuries caused by uneven TTC streetcar tracks

An Ontario Superior Court judge has awarded almost $4,000 in damages to a man who was injured when his front wheel struck the guard rail on the streetcar tracks at Wellington and York streets. 
 
_______________________________________________________________
I got a brand new CR-V and misjudged a corner in the parking garage and scraped the whole side of my vehicle from front to back. How do I know when it’s worth paying for the repair myself instead of making an insurance claim? We really had to save to buy this SUV and money is tight.– Brittany, Oshawa 
 
_______________________________________________________________

Insurance company can’t ‘double dip’ by suing lawyers
The June 17 decision, Hengeveld v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 497, focused when negligence of a plaintiff’s lawyer is the plaintiff’s responsibility, wrote Justice Benjamin Zarnett, with Justices Alexandra Hoy and Peter Lauwers concurring.

______________________________________________________________

MANDEL: Plea bargain goes awry in drunk-driving case

What a mess this drunk-driving case has become for everyone but the accused, whose one-year jail sentence has just been thrown out and a new trial ordered. 
 
_________________________________________________________________

Could trial lawyers take a run at a 40-year-old cap on pain and suffering awards?

The Supreme Court of Canada imposed a $100,000 cap on awards for non-pecuniary damages in 1978, as the personal injury law firm Himelfarb Proszanski reports. It was intended to put a lid on “widely extravagant” liability claims. 
 
_______________________________________________________________

No one told Montreal patient her new GP was under investigation

Paine found out why by reading a news report online: Smith was before the Quebec College of Physicians’ disciplinary board for having used his smartphone to surreptitiously take pictures of two patients during exams. 
 
 
_______________________________________________________________
 
Langemann v. St. Pierre, 2019 ONSC 4099 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j19mn  

[1]          The plaintiff Joseph Langemann claims damages arising from personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 1, 2012.  He alleges that he was injured when the Dodge Caravan vehicle that he was driving was involved in a collision with a farm tractor owned by the defendant Daniel Mooney and operated by the defendant Shane St. Pierre. 

[2]            The statement of claim was issued on January 17, 2014 by the plaintiff’s former counsel.  The action was dismissed for delay by the registrar on February 13, 2019, and the plaintiff, represented by different counsel since September, 2017, now moves to set aside that dismissal order.  The chronology of events in the action between the issuing of the statement of claim and the dismissal is set out below.  The motion is opposed by the defendants St. Pierre and Mooney.

[6]          The factors to be considered on this motion were reviewed by the Court of Appeal in Habib v. Mucaj[2012] O.J. 9546 (C.A.), at paragraphs 5-7:

There are four well established factors to consider when deciding to set aside an order to dismiss an action: (i) explanation of the litigation delay – a deliberate decision not to advance the litigation will usually be fatal; (ii) inadvertence in missing the deadline – the intention always was to set the action down within the time limit; (iii) the motion is brought promptly – as soon as possible after the order came to the party’s attention; and (iv) no prejudice to the defendant – the prejudice must be significant and arise out of the delay: Reid v. Dow Corning Corp. (2001), 11 C.P.C. (5th) 80 (Ont. Div. Crt.).

 No one factor is necessarily decisive of the issue. Rather, a “contextual” approach is required where the court weighs all relevant considerations to determine the result that is just. Here, the Master specifically referenced the proper test and engaged in the weighing exercise. He found that, after the weighing exercise, the just result was to set aside the dismissal order. The Master’s order was discretionary and was made as part of his duty to manage the trial list. The decision, therefore, attracts significant deference from a reviewing court: Finlay v. Van Paassen2010 ONCA 204 (CanLII).

7 Furthermore, on a motion to set aside a dismissal order, the court should be concerned primarily with the rights of the litigants, not with the conduct of their counsel. However, where the lawyer’s conduct is not inadvertent but deliberate, this may be different: Marché d’Alimentation Denis Thériault Ltée. v. Giant Tiger Stores Ltd. (2007), 2007 ONCA 695 (CanLII)87 O.R. (3d) 660 (O.C.A.), at para. 28.   . . . .

Comments are closed.