Author Archives: Admin2

Bill C-22 update and we are looking for input from the public to support amendments

Please take the time to write to the Senators!

What happens at the Senate with Bill C-22 will affect millions of ill, injured and disabled people across Canada. We urge you to respond to this call to address the failure to adequately support those Canadians in need by writing in to Senators. So far FAIR has sent in a letter and Addendum to the SOCI, the Committee who is currently hearing from Canadians and organizations and forming the framework legislation.

The SOCI is coming to the end of their clause-by-clause consideration and will soon be moving into their report writing phase . The Senate will enter the Third Reading stage because some amendments have been added to Bill C-22 and there will be a vote.

We urge you to write to the Senators as soon as possible to encourage them to vote YES to passing the Bill with amendments that will, we hope, close the door to insurers benefiting from taxpayer dollars that are supposed to be paid to disabled Canadians. You can access the senators email address here: Senators emails 2023

Submissions to SOCI on Bill C-22 related to Ontario Auto Insurance claw-backs

FAIR submission to SOCI on Bill C 22 April 11 2023

Acquired Brain Injury Survivor Solutions ABISS Submission on Bill C22

Jokelee Vanderkop submission on Bill C-22

Bill C-22 Unintended Consequence as a Windfall for Insurers Submitted by Steven Muller, Vice President of Litigation at Share Lawyers And Hart Schwartz

Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science
and Technology

Ontario Rehab Alliance (ORA) Bill C 22 – Submission

Safe Driver Or Passenger Commitment form

FAIR is pleased to share with you our latest project to promote safe driving.

It is printable and we hope you’ll share it with your family and friends and commit to safe driving practices.

Ontario Auditor General Value-for-Money Audit 2022 on Regulation of Private Passenger Automobile Insurance

November 30. 2022

Value-for-Money Audit: Financial Services Regulatory Authority: Regulation of Private Passenger Automobile Insurance, Credit Unions and Pension Plans (2022)

Even though Ontario has one of the lowest accident rates in Canada, it has the highest private passenger automobile insurance rates in Canada. Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk’s 2022 Annual Report says the regulator, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) could evaluate several initiatives for applicability in Ontario, that are in effect in other provinces, that may reduce rates.

The FSRA, which reports to the Minister of Finance, is the primary regulator of several financial services in the province, including about 310 insurance companies, 67,000 insurance agents, 60 credit unions and 4,600 pension plans. 

18 recommendations, with 60 action items to address audit findings

Tribunals Ontario Annual Report 2020-2021  pg 51

Law Society of Ontario v. Kerr


Active Trusteeship for Andrew Robert Kerr  

(Law Society Number 29542I)

The Law Society has been authorized by the Lawyer to administer his or her professional business or a portion thereof. If you are looking for client files, documents or funds, please visit Locating a will, legal file or document for information and resources. If necessary, you can complete an on-line request form.

When, by Court Order or by voluntary agreement, all or part of the property from a lawyer’s or paralegal’s professional business is under the control of the Law Society.

Telephone: 416-947-3300 Toll-free: 1-800-668-7380


Law Society of Ontario v. Kerr, 2022 ONLSTH 102 (CanLII), <


KERR – Penalty and Costs – Ungovernability – The panel found the Lawyer had: practised while suspended; failed to reply to communications from Law Society investigation counsel promptly and completely; failed to honour financial obligations by failing to pay a court reporter’s invoices; entered into an improper contingency fee agreement; improperly charged a client fees not provided for in a contingency fee agreement; and failed to report a potential claim against him to his insurer after a client’s claim was dismissed for delay – This was the third finding of misconduct, the nature and duration of which demonstrated a pattern of unwillingness to be governed – Evidence of mitigating factors was found to be insufficient – The Lawyer was found to be ungovernable and his licence was revoked – The panel ordered costs of $52,215.53.


[1]           C. Scott Marshall (for the panel):– We found that Andrew Robert Kerr (the Lawyer) engaged in professional misconduct by:[1]

  •        practising while suspended;
  •        failing to reply to communications from Law Society investigation counsel promptly and completely;
  •        failing to honour financial obligations by failing to pay a court reporter’s invoices;
  •        entering into a contingency fee agreement that failed to comply with the requirements of the Solicitors Act;[2]
  •        improperly charging a client fees not provided for in a contingency fee agreement; and
  •        failing to report a potential claim against him to his insurer after a client’s claim was dismissed for delay.

[2]           The Lawyer argued that mental illnesses made it impossible for him to respond to the Law Society without accommodation. We concluded he was capable of complying with his professional obligations without accommodation.

[3]           Having found misconduct, we turn to penalty and costs. It is worth noting that at the time of the penalty hearing, the Lawyer had yet to provide the Law Society with responses in nine active investigations despite being on notice that failure to provide responses would be an aggravating factor in determining penalty. Some of these responses have been outstanding for more than three years.

[4]           We find the Lawyer to be ungovernable and order that his licence to practise be revoked forthwith. He shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $52,215.53. Our reasons with respect to penalty and costs follow.


Andrew Robert Kerr Status – Suspended

The latest:

Conduct Proceeding – May 17, 2018

Andrew Robert Kerr (the Respondent), was found to have committed professional misconduct on the following established allegations: (1) With respect to four Law Society investigations, the Respondent failed to reply promptly and completely to 11 Law Society communications, over a period of almost 12 months, contrary to s. 49.3(2) of the Law Society Act and Rule 7.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. On May 17, 2018, the Law Society Tribunal – Hearing Division ordered that: (1) The Respondent’s licence to practise law shall be suspended for one month, effective May 22, 2018, and shall continue to be suspended indefinitely thereafter until, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Professional Regulation of the Law Society or her designate (the “Executive Director”), he has provided a complete response to the Law Society requests dated May 3, 2017 and May 4, 2017 in relation to the four following Law Society investigations: Case No. 2016-200275; Case No. 2017-204157; Case No. 2017-206039; and Case No. 2017-208003. (2) While suspended pursuant to this order, the Respondent shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society’s Guidelines for Lawyers Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given An Undertaking Not to Practise. (3) The Respondent shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $4,000 on or before the deadline of May 4, 2019. Starting the day following the deadline for the payment of costs, interest shall accrue on any unpaid part of those costs at a rate of 3% per year.

Appeal – June 18, 2018

By Notice of Appeal to the Law Society Tribunal – Appeal Division, dated June 18, 2018, Andrew Robert Kerr (the Appellant) appealed the Order of the Law Society Tribunal – Hearing Division, dated May 17, 2018.


Law Society of Ontario v. Kerr, 2018 ONLSTH 139 (CanLII), <


KERR – Procedure – Adjournments – The Lawyer’s adjournment request was granted so that he could file a medical report, which he submitted would support his argument that his disability was a relevant factor with respect to any finding of misconduct or any potential penalty.


Law Society of Ontario v. Kerr, 2018 ONLSTH 65 (CanLII), <


KERR – Failure to Co-operate – The Lawyer failed to reply promptly and completely to the Society’s inquiries in relation to four investigations, over a period of almost 12 months – He admitted his misconduct and he had no prior disciplinary record – The Lawyer described a series of staff disruptions and personal misfortunes, but there was no evidence from a health care practitioner about the medical condition he reported – In any event, during the period of his non-compliance, he was able to continue practising successfully – The Lawyer’s licence was suspended for one month, continuing indefinitely until he has provided a complete response to the Society’s requests regarding the four investigations.



[1]           Raj Anand:– The Law Society alleged that Mr. Kerr (the respondent) failed to reply promptly and completely to its inquiries in relation to four of its investigations. Its evidence was contained in an affidavit of the Law Society’s investigator, which was admitted on consent. I made a finding of professional misconduct, which the respondent did not oppose, and I indicated that short written reasons would follow.

[2]           Proceeding to penalty, Mr. Kerr testified and submitted additional evidence. Duty counsel submitted that the penalty should be a reprimand with conditions, while the Law Society asked for a one-month suspension. After argument, I reserved my decision.

[3]           After considering the matter further, I order a one-month suspension, together with the agreed to amount of $4,000 in costs. These are my reasons.


[4]           The affidavit evidence showed that over a period from May 3 to October 18, 2017, the investigator requested Mr. Kerr’s responses to the Law Society’s inquiries in order to proceed with five investigations. She received a response in one investigation on October 25, 2017, and none in the other four. During this period, the investigator wrote three letters and exchanged nine phone calls or messages with the respondent. The Law Society gave Mr. Kerr about six time extensions for response between May and October 2017.

[5]           Based on this evidence, I made a finding of professional misconduct relating to the respondent’s failure to submit a full and timely response to the Law Society’s inquiries.




16-002815 v The Personal Insurance Company of Canada, 2017 CanLII 56677 (ON LAT), <

[17]     The respondent contends the medical note provided by applicant’s counsel was insufficient as it failed to provide a medical opinion to explain why counsel could not make a phone call or email the Tribunal, or give instructions to an assistant to explain he was having medical issues and request an adjournment.  The respondent argues that despite illness it was unreasonable for counsel to fail to advise the Tribunal and/or request an extension until 26 days after the first deadline was missed. 

[18]      The respondent quoted LAT decision B.F. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company2017 CanLII 9821 (ON LAT) as authority.  In this case, the Adjudicator awarded costs against the respondent for failing to comply with the Tribunal’s production orders twice and for not providing a reasonable explanation until a request had been made for costs.  The Adjudicator found the representative’s conduct was unreasonable as it was disrespectful of the Tribunal’s process and interfered with the Tribunal’s ability to run an efficient hearing. 

[19]      Applicant’s counsel submits that the nature of his illness has impeded his ability to comply with the Tribunal’s orders.  Applicant’s counsel argues that the intention of the legislation is that an award of costs be granted in extreme circumstances.  He acknowledges missing a number of deadlines and was delayed in notifying the Tribunal. Furthermore, he indicates his illness has been corroborated in the doctor’s note submitted.  Therefore, his actions cannot be defined as unreasonable because his actions were not deliberate or a contemptuous course of action, as the term “unreasonable” suggests.


16-002815 v The Personal Insurance Company of Canada, 2017 CanLII 63664 (ON LAT), <

[8]        On February 17, 2017, the respondent wrote to the applicant advising that they had not received any submissions in relation to either hearing. 

[9]        On February 23, 2017, the Tribunal contacted the applicant’s representative to inquire about their intention to proceed as they had not filed any submissions. The Tribunal spoke with the representative’s assistant who confirmed an intention to proceed, and left a voicemail for the applicant’s counsel.

[10]      On March 14, 2017, the Tribunal received correspondence from the applicant’s representative indicating that he had not been in touch with the Tribunal due to illness and requesting an extension to file submissions. This letter also enclosed a FSCO Report of Mediator dated June 21, 2016 in relation to the written preliminary hearing that was scheduled for March 2, 2017.  The applicant had   only recently provided this report to the respondent.

[11]      On the same date, the Tribunal received correspondence from the respondent opposing the applicant’s request for an extension to file submissions and opposing acceptance in evidence of the Report of Mediator.  The respondent cited Rule 9.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure which deals with the Tribunal’s discretion to not accept evidence that is in non-compliance with the Tribunal’s Rules and Orders.  In addition, the respondent indicated an intention to formally request an Order for costs for the applicant’s failure to advise the Tribunal of his medical condition in a timely manner and his subsequent request for an extension to file submissions. 

            Adjournment Request

[12]      On March 16, 2017, the day of the scheduled hybrid hearing, a teleconference was held with the parties. The applicant’s representative advised that he was not prepared to proceed with the hearing and asked for an adjournment.  I asked the applicant’s representative why he had failed to request an extension to file submissions or file a proper request for an adjournment.  The applicant’s representative advised that he has had various medical issues and most recently an illness that rendered him completely unable to work.  He indicated that he could provide a doctor’s note confirming same.  I asked that he provide the Tribunal with a medical certificate no later than March 23, 2017.  

[13]      I further inquired about why he did not provide instructions to someone at his office to communicate his health issues to the Tribunal and request an extension and adjournment.  He replied that he is unfamiliar with Tribunal work and got the dates of the written and preliminary hearing mixed up.

[14]      After hearing the parties submissions, I granted the request for an adjournment of the hybrid hearing.  In coming to this decision, I considered the principles of procedural fairness and the disadvantaged position that the applicant would be in if he was forced to proceed in the absence of the ability to file any submissions or evidence.  I reminded the applicant about the Tribunal’s commitment to providing a fair open and accessible process that is also timely.  I also cautioned the applicant about any further delays.  To balance the rights of the respondent, I have given it the opportunity to provide submissions on costs.   Details with respect to the new dates and deadlines for submissions follow in the attached order.


Have you followed every opportunity when a claim goes wrong?

In a LAT decision released in January of 2022 ( Jarrett v Aviva the courts started the year off by reminding Ontario’s injured car crash survivors they shouldn’t look to the justice system to hold insurers accountable for their poor claims handling practices.

This isn’t new but it was a little bit like saying the quiet part out loud with “The legislature made a choice as to what disputes would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LAT, and what remedial powers the LAT would have. That was a policy choice it was entitled to make.” Arbitrator Craig Mazerolle went on to say, “Without a regulation allowing for damages, I am satisfied that the Legislature understood the consequences of its actions during the transfer of accident benefit disputes to the Tribunal, and it—in turn—decided not to provide the Tribunal with the power to grant damages (as used to be ordered by the courts).”

Suffice to say that most consumers wouldn’t know that Ontario legislators decide what coverage will or won’t be available to them, nor would they know that there are no safeguards in place to ensure that Ontario’s insurance companies actually stand behind the contracts they have with Ontario drivers. As Arbitrator Mazerolle explains it in Jarrett v Aviva, “despite the applicant’s arguments about the lack of remedies available to those who claim bad faith adjusting of designations, as well as the special role of punitive damages noted in Whiten—it was within the Legislature’s purview to remove this remedial power from the Tribunal.”

Any hope of accountability is explained away with a quote from a 2021 LAT AABS decision “an insured person’s right to file bad faith claims for punitive damages is no longer available. Further, that this was a policy choice made by the legislature. In coming to that conclusion, the Court states that the purpose of the legislature’s policy decision was to reduce insurance rates and provide for the fast and efficient resolution of disputes and avoid a duplication of processes. Of significance, the Court states that the legislature must have considered “the importance of its objectives of efficiency and cost reduction to outweigh the loss of insured individuals’ access to the courts and to the full range of remedies available there.”

In the Jarrett v Aviva decision it is clear the courts follow the legislation to the letter and squarely lay the responsibility for failing consumers at the legislators’ feet with, “the Tribunal must respect the Legislature’s role in crafting social policy, and, in turn, it must respect the choice to not include punitive damages in its remedial toolbox”. This profound failure to protect consumers from ultra-rich and unaccountable insurance companies has left Ontario’s injured patients with no tools in their toolbox and with little hope of recovering the costs of their recovery journey. Of great concern to all of us should be the fact that taxpayers pay when insurers don’t by way of social support like OW and ODSP along with increased OHIP costs as consumers frantically search for ways to recover from their injuries.

The previous Liberal government is responsible for the mess we find ourselves in today with some 16,000 injured car crash survivors applying for hearings at the LAT in just the last year alone in order to get the benefits they paid for. The Liberals made promises of ‘more choices’ but ended up making bad deals with insurers and leaving patients in the lurch. It’s created a huge backlog of cases because the current Conservative government has done nothing to course correct the downward spiral of insurance quality that was kick-started by the Liberals removing disincentives for insurers who behave badly. Quietly the significant interest insurers had to pay claimants for overdue benefits disappeared from legislation along with the ‘special award’ payable for bad behavior. The reality is the insurers are in the game to make profit, not friends. And screwing Ontario patients out of the resources they need is a profitable endeavor that has no downside because there’s no accountability and there is no price to be paid for manhandling their own customers.

So what is a car crash survivor supposed to do? How can we change insurers’ claims handling practices? If the last stop on the road to recovery is a court that won’t or can’t help us, what steps should we take? I put the question to some of our supporters and was surprised to hear of some good outcomes coming from unexpected places and some suggestions.

If the Brokers are the individuals who sell us the product and tell us it’s good coverage, why are we not looping them into the catastrophe that blows up our lives when the product they sold us turns out to be useless? Apparently some are willing to step up and reach out on their customer’s behalf to the insurer that THEY recommended. It’s true that many Brokers are now owned and operated by insurance companies but not all are, and every one of them ought to know which companies behave badly. One Broker we know of did reach out to their customer’s insurance adjuster and somehow effected a change that helped get their customer the help they needed.

And what about your insurance company’s Ombudsman? They all have one dedicated to their company and as one lawyer recently reminded FAIR, sometimes it only takes fresh eyes or a new perspective to change the course of adjusting a claim. It may be more likely a lawyer who would be more successful at effecting change at this level but for those self representing it is worth a try. And if not successful with your insurance company Ombudsman, there is always the General Insurance Ombudsman to follow up with (although the GIO website indicates they will only get involved if there is not a legal case ongoing) and it is another step to put pressure on an insurer to do the right thing.

There is also the FSRA complaints system that considers whether your auto insurance company has violated Ontario’s Insurance Act and/or regulations or has been subjecting you to Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP). You do not have to access any of the above suggestions before making a FSRA complaint and there is a lot of information on their website that will help you articulate how your insurance company may have broken the rules.

Last, but not least, what about your local MPP? The legislators who enacted the current legislation are mostly out of the picture now but those who currently represent you are the representatives who can and should make legislative changes to protect vulnerable car crash survivors. In addition they need to know how badly Ontario’s patients are being treated in what is a private medical system where profit is more important than recovery and how that affects us all. A phone call to an insurer from an MPP could make all the difference in how your claim is handled.

We aren’t convinced that our past legislators truly “understood the consequences of its actions during the transfer of accident benefit disputes to the Tribunal” or that they understood the outcomes, both physical and financial, for both injured car crash patients or for the taxpayers when changes to coverage to assist insurers were made. Ontario cannot afford to bargain away more coverage so informing government representatives is a significant action that might cause hesitation to undermine justice going forward.

By Rhona DesRoches Feb 2, 2022

UPDATED -Is it fair that taxpayers are funding CMPA to defend doctors but not patients when medical harm is done?

The CMPA, a non profit organization, uses our tax dollars to pay lawyers to defend doctors accused of medically harming patients and this results in preventing all opportunity to ‘learn from their mistakes’.

When car crash survivors complain about the poor quality of their insurer medical exams and reports Ontario’s doctors can make use of CMPA funds to protect them from accountability while Ontario’s patients are expected to pay for their own legal representation. This failure to reign in doctors and improve the patient care is leading to poorer outcomes and access to recovery resources and it leads to individuals becoming dependent on social supports when they can’t get what they need.

According to Teri McGrath @Teri4112 recently seen on W-5, “Our tax dollars, $520,000,000.00+++ is needed to help patients/families who have been harmed rather than CMPA lawyers who use “a scorched-earth policy which is a military strategy that aims to destroy anything that might be useful to the enemy.”

UPDATE from Teri McGrath, September 21/21:

Tim Mitchell, who did a one man protest at the CMPA office in Ottawa last January is going to go ahead with the Oct. 6, 2021 protest 11 – 2 pm at: CMPA office (875 Carling Ave., Ottawa). He will have a few posters ready if anyone wants to join him.

For anyone who wants to protest but can’t make it to Ottawa, it has been suggested that you do your own protest locally at the provincial Minister of Health office/legislative buildings (he/she determines the amount of the rebate) on the same day, Oct 6. Addresses attached. No need to get super organized, just show up with family and friends.

Attached is a pamphlet you can use to hand out. I suggest you keep the placards simple saying Defund The Canadian Medical Protective Association. And if you are concerned about push back from your doctor, go incognito and wear a mask, hat and sunglasses. Also bring your wheelchairs, walkers and canes. Contact your local news media and let them know what is happening.

As we know, actions speak louder than words. So this is an ideal opportunity to respectfully let the Ministers and CMPA know that patient abuse has got to stop. – Teri McGrath

CMPA facts tri-fold pamphlet blue

Addresses for provincial Min of Health offices

You can get involved by sending a letter to your provincial auditor about the harm when our tax dollars are used to unfairly protect one party over another:

template Letter to Prov AG about CMPA taxpayer funded protection for Drs and not patients.

What we know so far on submissions to Fraud and Abuse consultation from Minister of Finance office

[CLOSED] Proposed Fraud and Abuse Strategy for the Auto Insurance Sector

In the current auto insurance sector, “insurance fraud and abuse” is neither defined in legislation nor regulation, nor is there an accurate quantification in the size and scope of fraud and abuse. Past governments, regulators and industry have attempted different approaches to identify and measure fraud and abuse. As a result, the industry has taken individualized approaches for managing fraud and abuse, which has created further inconsistencies. and


FAIR submission to Proposed Fraud and Abuse Strategy for the Auto Insurance Sector 21-MOF010

FSRA Consumer Advisory Panel (CAP) Fraud & Abuse Consultation Submission

Ontario Rehabilitation Alliance Submission to the Ministry of Finance Fraud and Abuse Consultation

Ontario Psychological Association (OPA) Submission to Fraud and Abuse Consultation

OTLA MOF Submission – Proposed Fraud and Abuse Strategy – July 12 2021

The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association (CLHIA) Submission to the ON Ministry of Finance and FSRA

Ongoing consultations related to Ontario auto insurance

From the Minister of Finance office:

Proposed Fraud and Abuse Strategy for the Auto Insurance Sector- DUE: July 12, 2021.The Ministry of Finance (MOF) and Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) are consulting on a Fraud and Abuse Strategy (F&A Strategy)


Recent consultations (now closed)

From the Financial Services Regulatory Authority: