Author Archives: Admin2

“If Hryniak does in fact open the floodgates for summary judgment motions, as I believe the Supreme Court intended, our court system may ultimately require a broader reprioritization and reallocation of judicial resources simply to keep up with the caseload.”

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201402243794/headline-news/adapt-judge-s-model-to-summary-motions-lawyers-say

“The law changing the attendant benefits wasn’t expressly stated to operate retroactively. However, at least two large insurers have notified plaintiffs’ lawyers they are taking the position the change in law operates retroactively and will apply it to accidents that occurred prior to Feb. 1. This is incredibly mean-spirited. Taking such an approach is sure to lead to many disputed claims and delayed payments for attendant care accident benefits. Claims will face lengthy delays as they proceed through mediation and arbitration or court challenges.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/21/new-rules-already-in-effect

FAIR took issue with a recommendation that experts “should be required to certify their duty to the tribunal and to provide fair, objective and non-partisan evidence,” that expert witnesses whose evidence is deemed biased should be disregarded and denied payment.
“That vendor, without any real sanctions, will simply move on, do it again, and hope not to be caught by the next arbitrator.”

DRS report too weak – FAIR – THOMPSON’S WORLD INSURANCE NEWS Feb 21 2014

“The medical opinion evidence in respect to Ontario’s vulnerable and often cognitively impaired accident victims should be of the utmost importance and of the highest quality to satisfy our courts who must decide whether or not an injured person is entitled to benefits,” FAIR stated Friday. “There is no more important evidence than that and it is central to the recent mediation backlog – too many legitimate claims indiscriminately turned down by insurers based on questionable medical reports.”

http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/accident-victims-group-takes-issue-with-report-on-ontario-auto-dispute-resolution-system/1002927047/

It is highly doubtful that people are suddenly getting “less injured” over the past few years. What is likely the case is that more and more people are getting pushed thoughtlessly into the MIG. This trend does not come as a surprise to anyone practising in this area.

http://otlablog.com/minor-injury-guideline-is-not-just-holding-up-it-appears-to-be-gaining-strength/

A review of the Ontario auto insurance dispute resolution system (DRS) carried out by Justice Douglas Cunningham recently provided the government with 28 recommendations which if implemented would remove the system from Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and create a new government administrative tribunal.

http://williehandler.blogspot.ca/2014/02/cunningham-report-recommends-new.html

The DRS review was part of the government’s overall plan to reduce auto insurance rates in the province.

http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/final-review-of-ontario-auto-dispute-resolution-system-released-with-28-recommendations/1002922680/

A review of the Ontario auto insurance dispute resolution system (DRS) was first announced in the 2012 Ontario Budget. The 2013 Ontario Budget committed to the appointment of an expert to review the system and propose legislative amendments in the fall of 2013.

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/autoinsurance/drs-final-report.html#framework