• 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

March 12, 2020

Plaintiffs’ odds improving in ‘David v. Goliath’ medical malpractice case

“The CMPA pays out more money than any other litigant in Canada a year on settlements because of the number of claims against doctors,” he says.
The association has more than 100,000 members — more than 40,000 of them in Ontario — and the doctors pay thousands of dollars in annual fees. It has also been funded by taxpayer money since 1987, a fact that has been criticized by lawyers and the public alike over the years
 
***
This CMPA issue was included in some of the public comments and in FAIR submission on the recent CPSO policy consultation. See:
***
Report to Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Re: Medical Liability Review

The ministry retained former Justice Stephen Goudge to conduct a  review of the medical liability system in Ontario

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/ministry/publications/reports/medical_liability/

________________________________________________________________

There’s a $40,000 deductible if you receive a pain and suffering award – What’s that you ask?

If you are hurt in a car accident and are awarded a pain and suffering payout your insurance company immediately takes $39,556.53 right off the top of the settlement. To be clear, they just take it. It’s taken before any other costs are deducted from the amount. The first deductible was set in 1993 at $10,000 with the intent of eliminating frivolous claims. In 1996 the government increased it to $15,000 and it has increased steadily ever since.
 
_______________________________________________________________

Ford government’s legal aid plan will have ‘profoundly negative’ effect on low-income Ontarians, law professors say

The Ontario government’s proposed changes to the legal aid system “will have profoundly negative impacts” on the people served by the province’s community legal clinics, according to a report endorsed by more than 30 law professors from across the province.
 
_______________________________________________________________

Exploring future spinal cord injury therapies

“We are the first to show that spinal cord injury results in an energy crisis that is intrinsically linked to the limited ability of damaged axons to regenerate,” said Dr Zu-Hang Sheng, study co-senior author, senior principal investigator at the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).
 
________________________________________________________________

Vaughn Palmer: Cheaper, enhanced ICBC is more ‘framework’ than reality despite hype

VICTORIA — Attorney General David Eby tabled the enabling legislation Wednesday for his ambitious makeover of auto insurance, vowing it would transform the corporate culture at ICBC while delivering a 20 per cent reduction in rates.
 
 
_________________________________________________________________

Take-All-Comers rule  

ID
2020-004
Type
Supervision
Sector
Auto Insurance Sector
Status
Open
Date
March 9, 2020
Comment Due Date
June 5, 2020
Have you had difficulty obtaining auto insurance?  Ontarians have the right to insurance quotes through a fair process and to receive coverage on fair terms.  If you have a good driving record and have been unfairly denied coverage, or have experienced unreasonable delay when requesting a quote, this survey is for you.
__________________________________________
 
3 FSCO hearings + at least one at LAT + 1 at Div Court = TTC pays out over $73,000 for victims legal costs + their own (unknown) costs to deny $185.00/week + medical expenses from car accident in 2012
 
TTC Insurance Company Limited v. Kolapully, 2020 ONSC 1105 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5ckr

[1]               TTC Insurance Company Limited seeks judicial review of an appeal decision of a Director’s Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (“FSCO”) dated February 8, 2019.  The Director’s Delegate’s decision upheld a March 9, 2018 arbitration decision awarding non-earner benefits to the Respondent, Shoba Kolapully, pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, O.Reg. 34/10 (the “SABS”).  We dismissed the application after oral argument, with these reasons to follow.

[2]               On March 6, 2012, Ms. Kolapully was struck by a TTC bus while crossing a pedestrian crossway.  Ms. Kolapully suffered significant injuries, including breaking both her legs and suffering a traumatic brain injury.  The aspect of her claims at issue on this application is her entitlement to a “non-earner benefit” under the SABS.

[3]               Pursuant to s. 12(1) of the SABS, to qualify for a non-earner benefit, the person involved in the accident must show that she suffers a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of and within 104 weeks after the accident.  “Complete inability to carry on a normal life” is defined in s. 3(7)(a) of the SABS as where “the person sustains an impairment that continuously prevents the person from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which the person ordinarily engaged before the accident.”

[11]           The Applicant raised additional arguments in its factum which were not emphasized in oral argument because of the focus placed on its primary argument.  In short, the Applicant argued that (a) the Arbitrator made a palpable and overriding error in her credibility assessment of Ms. Kolapully, given her obvious unreliability; and (b) the Arbitrator’s finding that the degree of impairment met the test for a non-earner benefit was not supported by the record.  There is little merit to these submissions.  As found by the Director’s Delegate, the Arbitrator made her credibility findings after considering all the points raised by the Applicant, and she was entitled to come to the finding that she did.  The Director’s Delegate concluded that the Arbitrator did compare the claimant’s life before and after the injuries, as she was required to do by Heath, and that her conclusions were grounded in the factual record before her.  These findings – which concern questions of fact and findings of credibility – were open to the Director’s Delegate and are reasonable.

12]           The application is dismissed, with costs from the Applicant to Ms. Kolapully of $25,000, inclusive, as agreed between the parties.  There shall be no costs for or against FSCO.

Comments are closed.