Author Archives: Admin2

Pilotte v Gilbert, 2016 ONSC 494 (CanLII)

http://canlii.ca/t/gn24c

[2]               This matter has endured a long and convoluted history in the 22 years since the accident occurred in 1993. It culminates in this five-week trial in which the plaintiff claims compensation for accident benefits which she argues she would have received but for the negligence of the defendant, Ian D. Kirby (Kirby). She claims damages against Kirby and his law firm Gilbert, Wright & Kirby, Barristers and Solicitors (the law firm), for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming millions of dollars in damages, including interest.
[643]      There is no question of the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries resulting from the 1993 accident. The sad reality is that, as a result, Julie’s condition has produced some serious permanent and lasting sequelae which may be subject to further deterioration in the future. It is evident that the actions of Julie, her parents, her sister and her husband Paul have been supportive, well-meaning and diligent in many respects throughout Julie’s journey towards recovery.
[644]      The issue before this Court, however, is a narrow one: Was the defendant, Ian Kirby, negligent in the handling of the plaintiff’s case? The evidence has led this Court to conclude that he was not. 
[645]      Thus, for the reasons stated above, the action of the plaintiff as against Ian D. Kirby and his law firm, Gilbert, Wright, & Kirby, Barristers and Solicitors, is dismissed

FAIR Submission to the 2016 PRE-BUDGET CONSULTATIONS

Claimants have long known about the deceptive nature of claims handling in Ontario. It’s time that our legislators and law-makers acknowledge Ontario’s insurance industry fraud, whether it be an adjuster, an assessor, assessment centers, treatment facility or the insurer themselves whose policies support or encourage swindling legitimate claimants out of the coverage they paid for.

FAIR submission to the Pre-budget Consultation February 2 2016

Chrisjohn v. Nobili, 2013 ONSC 1447 (CanLII)

http://canlii.ca/t/fwsln

Waters v. Carter, 2013 ONSC 1819 (CanLII)

http://canlii.ca/t/fwskw

Tesfaslasie v. Bursey, 2013 ONSC 1407 (CanLII)

http://canlii.ca/t/fwfc8

Fair auto insurance? That’s a stretch -Premiums are too high, benefits are being slashed and insurers are denying valid accident claims

Remember back in 2013 when our minority Liberal government promised us a 15% cut in car insurance rates by August, 2015? Earlier this month, Premier Kathleen Wynne belatedly admitted defeat, claiming this was always a “stretch goal”, whatever that means.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/30/fair-auto-insurance-thats-a-stretch

Courts and junk science We need to take a much tougher look at so-called ‘expert testimony’ in our justice system

We’re kidding ourselves if we think civil litigation is immune from the junk science expert testimony problems we have seen in the criminal justice system. If anything, the problem is likely more pervasive in the civil justice system where the standard of proof is lower.
It’s time we held an inquiry into the use of junk science in both our criminal and civil justice systems and rooted out the experts who taint cases with junk evidence.
It’s not the science that is junk; it’s the “experts” who spew misinformation.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/16/courts-and-junk-science

Proposed Revised Rules of Practice and Procedure for the Licence Appeal Tribunal December 17, 2015

 Subject to public feedback and comments received, these rules will be adopted by LAT on April 1, 2016. This will coincide with the anticipated “transition date” when LAT will begin having jurisdiction over certain automobile insurance disputes in relation to the Statutory Accidents Benefits Schedule (a regulation under the Insurance Act).

The draft regulations are open for public comment until January 23, 2016. http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/lat/english/Documents/Rules%20of%20Practice/Proposed%20LATRules%20English%2017December2015.htm

10.1               EXPERT WITNESS—GENERAL  
For the purpose of these Rules, an expert witness is a person who is qualified to provide professional, scientific, or technical information and opinion based on special knowledge through education, training or experience in respect of the matters on which he or she will testify.
Commentary
This provision is identical to current LAT Rule 6.4..
10.2               EXPERT WITNESSES (IDENTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE)
A party who intends to rely on or refer to the evidence of an expert witness shall provide every other party with the following information in writing:
(a)  The name of the expert witness;
(b)  A signed statement from the expert, in the Tribunal’s required form, acknowledging his or her duty to:
(i)            provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective, and non-partisan;
(ii)          provide opinion evidence that is related to matters within his/her area of expertise;
(iii)         provide such additional assistance as the Tribunal may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue.  
(c)  The qualifications of that expert witness, referring specifically to the education, training and experience relied upon to qualify the expert;
(d)  A report that sets out the expert’s conclusions and the basis for those conclusions on the issues to which the expert will provide evidence to the Tribunal;
(e)  Where the written report exceeds 12 pages, excluding photographs, a summary stating the facts and issues that are admitted and those that are in dispute, and the expert’s findings and conclusions; and
(f)   Where that party intends to rely on or refer to the written report or the witness statement at the hearing, a copy of that report or witness statement signed by the expert witness.
 Commentary
This provision is based on the current LAT Rule 6.5. Subsection (c) refers only to a “report” rather than a “witness statement or written report” on an expert’s conclusions.
A more substantive change is the addition of subsection (b).  Subsection (b) is adopted from the current rules of Health Professionals Appeal and Review Board /Health Services Appeal and Review Board.  The new subsection is designed to respond to Recommendation #18 set out in the Hon. Douglas Cunningham’s Ontario Automobile Insurance Dispute Resolution System Review Final Report (“Cunningham Report”).  
10.3               EXPERT WITNESSES (DISCLOSURE TIMELINES)
The disclosure required by Rule 10.2 shall be made:
(a) By the party who filed the notice of appeal, at least 30 days before the hearing;
(b) By any other party at least 20 days before the hearing; or
(c) As ordered by the Tribunal.
Commentary
Identical to LAT Rule 6.6. 
10.4               EXPERT WITNESSES—CHALLENGES TO QUALIFICATIONS, REPORTS
A party intending to challenge an expert’s qualifications, report or witness statement shall give notice, with reasons, for the challenge to the other parties as soon as possible and no later than 10 days before the hearing and must file a copy with the Tribunal
Commentary
The wording to the current LAT Rule 6.8 provides that LAT requires notice about a challenge to an expert five days in advance. Under the revised rules, it is being proposed that 10 days’ notice will be required.  

Older cases

Davenport v. Suboch, 2013 CanLII 50386 (ON SC), http://canlii.ca/t/g02jc

Ngo v. LY, 2013 ONSC 5120 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/g01l3

Katanic v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2013 ONSC 5103 (CanLII) http://canlii.ca/t/g01jx

Grejdieru v. Hussein, 2013 ONSC 4558 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fzhs7

Seitzema v Economical, 2013 ONSC 4299 (CanLII),  http://canlii.ca/t/fzdrl

Grejdieru v. Hussein, 2013 ONSC 4558 (CanLII) http://canlii.ca/t/fzhs7

Ross v. Hertz Canada, 2013 ONSC 1797 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fx5gx

Stevens and O’Connell et al, 2013 ONSC 2236 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fx3fx

Chrisjohn v. Nobili, 2013 ONSC 1447 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fwsln

Waters v. Carter, 2013 ONSC 1819 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fwskw

Tesfaslasie v. Bursey, 2013 ONSC 1407 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fwfc8

Bruff-Murphy v Gunawardena 2016 ONSC7 Court File No: 10-CV-49613 Date: 2016/01/05

(56) During argument of the plaintiff’s objection to Dr. Bail testifying as an expert, I expressed concern upon reading Dr. Bail’s report as to what appeared to be an adversarial format and some of the content of the report. My concern was whether Dr. Bail’s testimony would be fair, objective, non-adversarial and be limited to his capacity as a psychiatrist.
(125) I will not qualify witnesses as experts in the future whose reports present an approach similar to that of Dr. Bail in this case.

Bruff-Murphy et al v Gunawardena – Threshold Decision