Her longtime friend Bill Atanasoff, 63, a former City-TV cameraman who was struck by a drunk driver Nov. 9, 2010, while on assignment, has been struggling with his health since he was released from hospital in June 2014.
http://www.torontosun.com/
Author Archives: Admin4
Thousands needed for care of badly injured cameraman
Court Has “Inherent Jurisdiction” To Order Party To Produce Medical Report Addressing Their “Capability”
Today’s case (Walker v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company) the Plaintiff sued the Defendant alleging breach of contract. The lawsuit had a complicated procedural history and in the course of an application a Chambers judge ordered that the lawsuit could not continue until the Plaintiff’s “doctor or psychiatrist write a report to the court and advise whether the Plaintiff is capable or incapable of managing this litigation”.
Stafford, State Farm and Intact are ordered to pay the following all-inclusive amounts within 31 days. They are jointly and severally liable for the amounts set out.
[1] This endorsement deals with the cost consequences of my decision of November 2, 2015 [2015 ONSC 6723].
[2] Gordon Fitt sneaked the family car out of the matrimonial home and then crashed it on the highway, killing Andrew Passero and injuring his passenger, Scott Heron, and Fitt’s own passenger, Dodie Barker. Fitt and his wife had each insured the vehicle for $1,000,000 liability with separate insurers. Fitt pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and went to prison.
a. Gordon Fitt and Deanna Stafford were both owners of the motor vehicle driven by Gordon in the accident;
b. Since they were both owners, Deanna is liable whether or not she consented to Gordon’s possession of the vehicle at the time; and
c. Their respective insurers were liable for $1,000,000 each, not $1,000,000 between them.
[4] The first two questions required the application of settled law to agreed facts. Fitt’s and Stafford’s insurers, Intact and State Farm, should not have denied coverage. Ownership could not seriously be contested by either Fitt or Stafford in the circumstances. State Farm and Intact, however, were justified in contesting the extent of their liability. They had an arguable point about the interpretation and application of s.277 of the Insurance Act. But they were unsuccessful.
[5] The successful side was led by the Passero plaintiffs and their insurer, Axa Canada. Their success was shared by the Heron plaintiffs and their insurer (Cooperators) and the Barker plaintiffs and their insurer (Gore Mutual). Gordon Fitt was also successful on the third question. His insurer was held to be liable for all of the $1,000,000 coverage he bought.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc7195/2015onsc7195.html
Can the Ombudsman help you?
Have you already tried to resolve your problem with the government organization’s complaint procedures?
Fill out a complaint form, or read on to see if the Ombudsman can help you.
Review of the Mandates of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, Financial Services Tribunal, and the Deposit Insurance Corporation of Ontario
Written comments should be provided in electronic format (preferably Word or PDF) by email to: FIPBmandatereview@ontario.
What We Were Told – About FSCO – http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/
- FSCO is limited by the constraints of the Ontario Public Service, and lacks the appropriate resources, governance structure and accountability to effectively fulfill its current mandates
- Its regulatory approach is inflexible and insufficient to address both the complex and ever-changing financial marketplace and the challenges to consumer protection
- The regulatory approach taken to some financial products, services and intermediaries is neither coordinated nor consistent with that of other regulators
- Its policy and decision-making process lacks transparency and, in turn, the agency does not require or foster appropriate transparency within the sectors it regulates
- The credibility of the regulatory regime is undermined by the perception that FSCO is unable or unwilling to undertake effective enforcement
- Certain responsibilities are simply inconsistent with FSCO’s primary mandates
Consultation Paper April 21, 2015 http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/
How to complete the OCF-19 Application for Determination of a Catastrophic Impairment (Ontario)
The most serious motor vehicle accidents in Ontario are classified as “Catastrophic” by our Ontario insurance law. The term “Catastrophic” is a term of art; meaning that it carries its own legal definition; separate and apart from the common definition you would find in an English dictionary.
Shop Insurance Canada Explains Why Auto Insurance Rates Are So High In Greater Toronto Area
(PRLeap.com) November 19, 2015 – The Greater Toronto Area’s reputation as the most expensive region in Canada to insure a vehicle is well worn by now, although it is a reputation founded in reality. The city of Toronto and its surrounding neighborhoods represent the highest premiums in the country, with almost no exception. The surrounding province of Ontario has long been pegged as an expensive auto insurance market, but does the GTA give Ontario a bad name, and just why are prices so out of control in the big smoke of Toronto?
Is telematics actually encouraging better driving behavior?
Ever since telematics became available in the auto insurance marketplace, many brokers have urged their clients to consider adopting a usage-based insurance plan as a way to encourage safe driving practices and possibly even reduce their auto insurance premiums.
The 10 cars most likely to cause an injury claim
Many brokers may not associate the Porsche 911 Carrera with safety and low incidences of personal injury claims, but according to the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), the sports car is typically driven infrequently, resulting in it experiencing 75% fewer injuries than the average vehicle.
http://www.insurancebusiness.
$60,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Chronic Back Injury
In the recent case (Ali v. Rai) the Plaintiff was involved in two collisions in 2011. He was found faultless for both. The collisions caused a lingering back injury which remained symptomatic at the tie of trial and the symptoms were expected. The Court found both collisions caused the injury and it was indivisible.